From owen at delong.com  Mon Dec  1 19:04:21 2014
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 16:04:21 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Multi-homing justification removed?
In-Reply-To: <CAGkMwz6-sWT-WNEZ9OcqGMh+H=Hyk6CfFb4x6K5TH5tH5EcU8g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D1E8E83F5FA0FF4CB26E6F178DA9A0689D7139@ORD2MBX01C.mex05.mlsrvr.com>
	<cda43ae4a26a42f9b4df2f8fc38f9a98@DM2PR08MB478.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
	<B120E28BB5DF814C9286628998793290609BE6DE@COLO-VEXCH02.ntwebs.local>
	<D1E8E83F5FA0FF4CB26E6F178DA9A0689D7945@ORD2MBX01C.mex05.mlsrvr.com>
	<CAGkMwz6-sWT-WNEZ9OcqGMh+H=Hyk6CfFb4x6K5TH5tH5EcU8g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E2740FF8-B6A5-4891-A251-BD142F8A39F8@delong.com>

FWIW, Scott, your interpretation agrees with my recollection and my intents along the way.

I am not convinced that such a policy applied to the transfer market is a good idea. I believe that portable blocks place sufficient demand on internet resources that having a some number of hosts behind them (50%+) is not an unreasonable requirement regardless of whether the block is freshly minted from the RIR or recycled.

Owen

> On Nov 20, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Steve,
> 
> I think your interpretation of 4.3.2.2 is incorrect.  That policy section was not the one that authorized the receipt of a (PA) /24 for multihoming.  That was, and still is, 4.2.3.6 <http://4.2.3.6/>:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four236 <https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four236>, which states that "The ISP will then verify the customer's multihoming requirement and may assign the customer a /24, based on this policy."
> 
> 4.3.2.2 states that the minimum allocation size (from ARIN) for multihomed end users was a /24.  However, that did not allow you to get a /24 from ARIN just by becoming multihomed. If you were/are in that situation, you always had to (and still have to) get your /24 from your upstream if you don't meet ARIN's /24 utilizatinon criteria, and demonstrate efficient utilization before getting one from ARIN.
> 
> If my understanding does not match how policy was implemented by staff prior to implementation of ARIN-2014-13 on 17 September 2014, someone please correct me, but that was the intent of the policy as I understand it.
> 
> When discussing 2014-13, my sense of the community was that we did not want to authorize receipt of a /24 from ARIN solely based on multihoming, because that could possibly open up a land rush of organizations spun up solely for the purpose of getting a /24 from the free pool, holding it for the requisite time, and then selling it on the transfer market.  I personally would be more amenable to considering a policy change to liberalize the requirements for getting a /24 if/when they're available from the transfer market only.
> 
> -Scott
> 
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Steve King <steve.king at iconaircraft.com <mailto:steve.king at iconaircraft.com>> wrote:
> Multi-homing was not a requirement.   It was an alternate justification.  I can?t honestly meet the 50% utilization requirement for a /24, but under the pre-September rules I qualified for a /24 under 4.3.2.2 because I contract with multiple carriers and want to participate in BGP for failover.
> 
>  
> 
> Now that the language in 4.3.2.2 is gone, my reading is I have to either:
> 
>  
> 
> a)      Lie about my utilization.  Not willing to do that.
> 
> b)      Beg for a BGP-transferrable block from a carrier, and even then, deal with the fact that other ISPs are far more likely to aggregate and filter specific routes to large carrier-assigned blocks.  I end up with a less reliable failover solution.
> 
>  
> 
> The policy revision is a significant step backward for me.  Maybe I?m enough of an edge case to not matter.  But ARIN-2014-13 stated 4.3.2.2 was redundant given the lowered minimum allocation in 4.3.2.1.  It was not redundant.  It covered a case that I think matters.
> 
>  
> 
> The worst part is, I?m probably going to end up with two non-BGP transferrable /24s from two carriers (we all know they hand them out like candy with big circuits), so I?ll end up burning more IPV4 space than I otherwise would.
> 
>  
> 
>                                                                                                                                                                              
> 
>  
> 
> Steve King
> 
> ICON Aircraft
> 
>  
> 
> From: John Von Stein [mailto:John at qxccommunications.com <mailto:John at qxccommunications.com>] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:18 PM
> To: Richard J. Letts; Steve King; arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: RE: Multi-homing justification removed?
> 
>  
> 
> Speaking from recent / current experience, the multi-homing requirement is a bit of a challenge for tweener-sized organizations like QxC.  We are too big for underlying fiber carriers to comfortably continue to supply our need for IP addresses but not in the position to carry the financial, technical or operational challenges of multi-homing.  This was a very significant cost commitment for QxC and I can imagine this is not achievable for other like-sized ISPs.  Granted, we are better off for it now but had I known how much of a financial and technical hurdle this really was then I probably would not have done it.  I just needed more IP addresses to continue to grow my biz and would have much rather spent the money and manpower on marketing/sales/customer acquisition.  Multi-homing is a nice-to-have luxury that none of my customers are willing to pay for so it is simply a cost of entry to get the IP addresses we need to continue to grow our customer base. 
> 
>  
> 
> As such, I support dropping multi-homing as a prerequisite for an IP allocation. 
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> John W. Von Stein
> 
> CEO
> 
>  
> 
> <image001.jpg>
> 
>  
> 
> 102 NE 2nd Street
> 
> Suite 136
> 
> Boca Raton, FL 33432
> 
> Office: 561-288-6989 <tel:561-288-6989>
> www.QxCcommunications.com <http://www.qxccommunications.com/>
>  
> 
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
> 
>  
> 
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>] On Behalf Of Richard J. Letts
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 1:24 PM
> To: Steve King; arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Multi-homing justification removed?
> 
>  
> 
> I believe the intent was there.
> 
>  
> 
> orgs that have a justifiable/provable need for a /24 were been restricted by their current/lone provider being unwilling to give them enough address space. Not everyone has the ability to change providers, and if you can?t change providers then you certainly would not be able to multihome..
> 
>  
> 
> Richard Letts
> 
>  
> 
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>] On Behalf Of Steve King
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:47 AM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Multi-homing justification removed?
> 
>  
> 
> The changes implemented in ARIN-2014-13, specifically the removal of 4.3.2.2, appear to have removed the multi-homing justification for a /24 for end users.  Previously, the need to multi-home, and proof of contracts with multiple upstream providers, was sufficient to justify a /24 to participate in BGP.
> 
>  
> 
> For reassignments from ISPs, the language remains in 4.2.3.6.  Users can justify a /24 via a requirement to multi-home rather than utilization rate.  However this revision appears to leave utilization rate as the only criterion for direct end-user assignments.
> 
>  
> 
> Was this the intent or possibly an overlooked side effect of the change?
> 
>  
> 
>                                                                                                                                                                              
> 
>  
> 
> Steve King
> 
> ICON Aircraft
> 
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
> Please contact info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141201/28186cf1/attachment.htm>

From owen at delong.com  Mon Dec  1 19:08:28 2014
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 16:08:28 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change Utilization
	Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate - revised
In-Reply-To: <546E3210.5010602@linuxmagic.com>
References: <546E2D59.4050407@arin.net> <546E3210.5010602@linuxmagic.com>
Message-ID: <50123098-D2B4-4894-B7E0-263E93CAE563@delong.com>

The requirement for up to date WHOIS is elsewhere in policy and would be redundant here.

I would rather see the annual POC validation requirement added to that section as a separate proposal that applies to all resource requests.

Owen

> On Nov 20, 2014, at 10:25 AM, Michael Peddemors <michael at linuxmagic.com> wrote:
> 
> On 14-11-20 10:05 AM, ARIN wrote:
>> Policy statement:
>> 
>> Replace Section 4.2.4.1
>> 
>> ISPs must have efficiently utilized all allocations, in aggregate, to at
>> least 80% and at least 50% of every allocation in order to receive
>> additional space. This includes all space reassigned to their customers.
>> 
>> Replace Section 4.3.6.1
>> 
>> End-users must have efficiently utilized all assignments, in aggregate,
>> to at least 80% and at least 50% of every assignment in order to receive
>> additional space, and must provide ARIN with utilization details.
> 
> Sounds good, but suggest it get extended slightly..
> 
> End-users must have efficiently utilized all assignments, in aggregate,
> to at least 80% and at least 50% of every assignment in order to receive additional space, must provide ARIN with utilization details, and have correct information in WHOIS directory via SWIP or use of an RWhois server (Section 4.2.3.7 and Section 3.2) and has responded to a recent Annual Whois POC Verificaiton (Section 3.6)
> 
> This will help aid ARIN in ensuring information is up to date, for their own purposes.
> 
> Someone else probably can suggest better legal wording and/or phrasing, but you get the drift..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> "Catch the Magic of Linux..."
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc.
> Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca
> "LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
> 
> This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended
> solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
> Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely
> those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage 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 rudi.daniel at gmail.com  Tue Dec  2 07:02:40 2014
From: rudi.daniel at gmail.com (Rudolph Daniel)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 07:02:40 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014:21.CI pool size
Message-ID: <CA+uaoiU6Y+qyXF2vmjVBWHsijbYODQMU2d7AKxs+E=k4S2AUiw@mail.gmail.com>

I Support this CI pool size increase.

Rudi Daniel
784 430 9235
On Dec 1, 2014 8:09 PM, <arin-ppml-request at arin.net> wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
>         arin-ppml at arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         arin-ppml-request at arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         arin-ppml-owner at arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Advisory Council Meeting Results - November 2014 (ARIN)
>    2. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per
>       Section 4.4 (ARIN)
>    3. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in  Section 4.10
>       (ARIN)
>    4. Weekly posting summary for ppml at arin.net (Thomas Narten)
>    5. Re: Multi-homing justification removed? (Owen DeLong)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 15:34:58 -0500
> From: ARIN <info at arin.net>
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - November 2014
> Message-ID: <5474E7F2.60606 at arin.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk; format=flowed
>
> In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN
> Advisory Council (AC) met on 20 November 2014.
>
> The AC recommended the following to the ARIN Board for adoption:
>
>    Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-9: Resolve Conflict Between RSA
> and 8.2 Utilization Requirements
>
> The AC accepted the following Proposals as a Draft Policies:
>
>    ARIN-prop-213 Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4
>    ARIN-prop-214 Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10
>
> The AC is continuing to work on the following:
>
>    Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of Region Use
>    Draft Policy ARIN-2014-6: Remove 7.1 [Maintaining IN-ADDRs]
>    Draft Policy ARIN-2014-14: Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers
>    Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change Utilization Requirements from
> last-allocation to total-aggregate
>    Draft Policy ARIN-2014-19: New MDN Allocation Based on Past Utilization
>
> 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)
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 15:35:15 -0500
> From: ARIN <info at arin.net>
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI
>         Pool Size per Section 4.4
> Message-ID: <5474E803.9020504 at arin.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk; format=flowed
>
> On 20 November 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
> "ARIN-prop-213 Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4" as a Draft
> Policy.
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21 is below and can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_21.html
>
> You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft
> Policy 2014-21 on the Public Policy Mailing List.
>
> The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance
> of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource
> Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are:
>
>    * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
>    * Technically Sound
>    * Supported by the Community
>
> The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) 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,
>
> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
> ## * ##
>
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21
> Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4
>
> Date: 25 November 2014
>
> Problem Statement:
>
> At the time that this section of policy was written, IXP growth in North
> America was stagnant. Efforts of late have increased significantly
> within the IXP standards and other communities to improve critical
> infrastructure in North America. This effort is paying dividends and we
> project that a /16 will not be enough to continue to improve global
> interconnect conditions and support needed IXP CI infrastructure.
>
> Policy statement:
>
> Change to text in section 4.4 Micro Allocations:
>
> Current text:
>
> 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.
>
> Proposed text to replace current text entirely:
>
> ARIN will place an equivalent of a /15 of IPv4 address space in a
> reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4.
>
> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 15:35:29 -0500
> From: ARIN <info at arin.net>
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in
>         Section 4.10
> Message-ID: <5474E811.40500 at arin.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk; format=flowed
>
> On 20 November 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
> "ARIN-prop-214 Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10" as a Draft Policy.
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22 is below and can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_22.html
>
> You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft
> Policy 2014-22 on the Public Policy Mailing List.
>
> The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance
> of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource
> Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are:
>
>    * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
>    * Technically Sound
>    * Supported by the Community
>
> The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) 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,
>
> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
> ## * ##
>
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22
> Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10
>
> Date: 25 November 2014
>
> Problem Statement:
>
> The current section 4.10 Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6
> Deployment creates an issue where a small new organization that requires
> an IPv4 allocation or assignment would potentially receive a block that
> today would be unroutable and therefore unusable for it intended purposes.
>
> Policy statement:
>
> Change
>
> "This block will be subject to a minimum size allocation of /28 and a
> maximum size allocation of /24. ARIN should use sparse allocation when
> possible within that /10 block."
>
> To
>
> "This block will be subject to an allocation of /24. ARIN should use
> sparse allocation when possible within that /10 block."
>
> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 00:53:04 -0500
> From: Thomas Narten <narten at us.ibm.com>
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml at arin.net
> Message-ID: <201411280553.sAS5r4he009466 at rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Total of 5 messages in the last 7 days.
>
> script run at: Fri Nov 28 00:53:03 EST 2014
>
>     Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
> --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
>  60.00% |    3 | 55.51% |    18354 | info at arin.net
>  20.00% |    1 | 22.60% |     7473 | athompso at athompso.net
>  20.00% |    1 | 21.89% |     7240 | narten at us.ibm.com
> --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
> 100.00% |    5 |100.00% |    33067 | Total
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 16:04:21 -0800
> From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> To: Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Multi-homing justification removed?
> Message-ID: <E2740FF8-B6A5-4891-A251-BD142F8A39F8 at delong.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> FWIW, Scott, your interpretation agrees with my recollection and my
> intents along the way.
>
> I am not convinced that such a policy applied to the transfer market is a
> good idea. I believe that portable blocks place sufficient demand on
> internet resources that having a some number of hosts behind them (50%+) is
> not an unreasonable requirement regardless of whether the block is freshly
> minted from the RIR or recycled.
>
> Owen
>
> > On Nov 20, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Steve,
> >
> > I think your interpretation of 4.3.2.2 is incorrect.  That policy
> section was not the one that authorized the receipt of a (PA) /24 for
> multihoming.  That was, and still is, 4.2.3.6 <http://4.2.3.6/>:
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four236 <
> https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four236>, which states that "The
> ISP will then verify the customer's multihoming requirement and may assign
> the customer a /24, based on this policy."
> >
> > 4.3.2.2 states that the minimum allocation size (from ARIN) for
> multihomed end users was a /24.  However, that did not allow you to get a
> /24 from ARIN just by becoming multihomed. If you were/are in that
> situation, you always had to (and still have to) get your /24 from your
> upstream if you don't meet ARIN's /24 utilizatinon criteria, and
> demonstrate efficient utilization before getting one from ARIN.
> >
> > If my understanding does not match how policy was implemented by staff
> prior to implementation of ARIN-2014-13 on 17 September 2014, someone
> please correct me, but that was the intent of the policy as I understand it.
> >
> > When discussing 2014-13, my sense of the community was that we did not
> want to authorize receipt of a /24 from ARIN solely based on multihoming,
> because that could possibly open up a land rush of organizations spun up
> solely for the purpose of getting a /24 from the free pool, holding it for
> the requisite time, and then selling it on the transfer market.  I
> personally would be more amenable to considering a policy change to
> liberalize the requirements for getting a /24 if/when they're available
> from the transfer market only.
> >
> > -Scott
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Steve King <steve.king at iconaircraft.com
> <mailto:steve.king at iconaircraft.com>> wrote:
> > Multi-homing was not a requirement.   It was an alternate
> justification.  I can?t honestly meet the 50% utilization requirement for a
> /24, but under the pre-September rules I qualified for a /24 under 4.3.2.2
> because I contract with multiple carriers and want to participate in BGP
> for failover.
> >
> >
> >
> > Now that the language in 4.3.2.2 is gone, my reading is I have to either:
> >
> >
> >
> > a)      Lie about my utilization.  Not willing to do that.
> >
> > b)      Beg for a BGP-transferrable block from a carrier, and even then,
> deal with the fact that other ISPs are far more likely to aggregate and
> filter specific routes to large carrier-assigned blocks.  I end up with a
> less reliable failover solution.
> >
> >
> >
> > The policy revision is a significant step backward for me.  Maybe I?m
> enough of an edge case to not matter.  But ARIN-2014-13 stated 4.3.2.2 was
> redundant given the lowered minimum allocation in 4.3.2.1.  It was not
> redundant.  It covered a case that I think matters.
> >
> >
> >
> > The worst part is, I?m probably going to end up with two non-BGP
> transferrable /24s from two carriers (we all know they hand them out like
> candy with big circuits), so I?ll end up burning more IPV4 space than I
> otherwise would.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Steve King
> >
> > ICON Aircraft
> >
> >
> >
> > From: John Von Stein [mailto:John at qxccommunications.com <mailto:
> John at qxccommunications.com>]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:18 PM
> > To: Richard J. Letts; Steve King; arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:
> arin-ppml at arin.net>
> > Subject: RE: Multi-homing justification removed?
> >
> >
> >
> > Speaking from recent / current experience, the multi-homing requirement
> is a bit of a challenge for tweener-sized organizations like QxC.  We are
> too big for underlying fiber carriers to comfortably continue to supply our
> need for IP addresses but not in the position to carry the financial,
> technical or operational challenges of multi-homing.  This was a very
> significant cost commitment for QxC and I can imagine this is not
> achievable for other like-sized ISPs.  Granted, we are better off for it
> now but had I known how much of a financial and technical hurdle this
> really was then I probably would not have done it.  I just needed more IP
> addresses to continue to grow my biz and would have much rather spent the
> money and manpower on marketing/sales/customer acquisition.  Multi-homing
> is a nice-to-have luxury that none of my customers are willing to pay for
> so it is simply a cost of entry to get the IP addresses we need to continue
> to grow our customer base.
> >
> >
> >
> > As such, I support dropping multi-homing as a prerequisite for an IP
> allocation.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > John W. Von Stein
> >
> > CEO
> >
> >
> >
> > <image001.jpg>
> >
> >
> >
> > 102 NE 2nd Street
> >
> > Suite 136
> >
> > Boca Raton, FL 33432
> >
> > Office: 561-288-6989 <tel:561-288-6989>
> > www.QxCcommunications.com <http://www.qxccommunications.com/>
> >
> >
> > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
> addressed.
> >
> >
> >
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>]
> On Behalf Of Richard J. Letts
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 1:24 PM
> > To: Steve King; arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Multi-homing justification removed?
> >
> >
> >
> > I believe the intent was there.
> >
> >
> >
> > orgs that have a justifiable/provable need for a /24 were been
> restricted by their current/lone provider being unwilling to give them
> enough address space. Not everyone has the ability to change providers, and
> if you can?t change providers then you certainly would not be able to
> multihome..
> >
> >
> >
> > Richard Letts
> >
> >
> >
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>]
> On Behalf Of Steve King
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:47 AM
> > To: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> > Subject: [arin-ppml] Multi-homing justification removed?
> >
> >
> >
> > The changes implemented in ARIN-2014-13, specifically the removal of
> 4.3.2.2, appear to have removed the multi-homing justification for a /24
> for end users.  Previously, the need to multi-home, and proof of contracts
> with multiple upstream providers, was sufficient to justify a /24 to
> participate in BGP.
> >
> >
> >
> > For reassignments from ISPs, the language remains in 4.2.3.6.  Users can
> justify a /24 via a requirement to multi-home rather than utilization
> rate.  However this revision appears to leave utilization rate as the only
> criterion for direct end-user assignments.
> >
> >
> >
> > Was this the intent or possibly an overlooked side effect of the change?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Steve King
> >
> > ICON Aircraft
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 <
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
> > Please contact info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience
> any issues.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141201/28186cf1/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML mailing list
> ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>
> End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 114, Issue 1
> *****************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141202/04380079/attachment.htm>

From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Tue Dec  2 10:57:59 2014
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 15:57:59 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014:21.CI pool size
In-Reply-To: <CA+uaoiU6Y+qyXF2vmjVBWHsijbYODQMU2d7AKxs+E=k4S2AUiw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+uaoiU6Y+qyXF2vmjVBWHsijbYODQMU2d7AKxs+E=k4S2AUiw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A4A6325@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

I support this as well.

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

[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 Rudolph Daniel
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 7:03 AM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014:21.CI pool size


I Support this CI pool size increase.

Rudi Daniel
784 430 9235
On Dec 1, 2014 8:09 PM, <arin-ppml-request at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-request at arin.net>> wrote:
Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
        arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        arin-ppml-request at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-request at arin.net>

You can reach the person managing the list at
        arin-ppml-owner at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-owner at arin.net>

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Advisory Council Meeting Results - November 2014 (ARIN)
   2. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per
      Section 4.4 (ARIN)
   3. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in  Section 4.10
      (ARIN)
   4. Weekly posting summary for ppml at arin.net<mailto:ppml at arin.net> (Thomas Narten)
   5. Re: Multi-homing justification removed? (Owen DeLong)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 15:34:58 -0500
From: ARIN <info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net>>
To: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - November 2014
Message-ID: <5474E7F2.60606 at arin.net<mailto:5474E7F2.60606 at arin.net>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk; format=flowed

In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN
Advisory Council (AC) met on 20 November 2014.

The AC recommended the following to the ARIN Board for adoption:

   Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-9: Resolve Conflict Between RSA
and 8.2 Utilization Requirements

The AC accepted the following Proposals as a Draft Policies:

   ARIN-prop-213 Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4
   ARIN-prop-214 Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10

The AC is continuing to work on the following:

   Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of Region Use
   Draft Policy ARIN-2014-6: Remove 7.1 [Maintaining IN-ADDRs]
   Draft Policy ARIN-2014-14: Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers
   Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change Utilization Requirements from
last-allocation to total-aggregate
   Draft Policy ARIN-2014-19: New MDN Allocation Based on Past Utilization

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)


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 15:35:15 -0500
From: ARIN <info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net>>
To: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI
        Pool Size per Section 4.4
Message-ID: <5474E803.9020504 at arin.net<mailto:5474E803.9020504 at arin.net>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk; format=flowed

On 20 November 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
"ARIN-prop-213 Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4" as a Draft
Policy.

Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_21.html

You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft
Policy 2014-21 on the Public Policy Mailing List.

The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance
of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource
Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are:

   * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
   * Technically Sound
   * Supported by the Community

The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) 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,

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


## * ##


Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21
Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4

Date: 25 November 2014

Problem Statement:

At the time that this section of policy was written, IXP growth in North
America was stagnant. Efforts of late have increased significantly
within the IXP standards and other communities to improve critical
infrastructure in North America. This effort is paying dividends and we
project that a /16 will not be enough to continue to improve global
interconnect conditions and support needed IXP CI infrastructure.

Policy statement:

Change to text in section 4.4 Micro Allocations:

Current text:

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.

Proposed text to replace current text entirely:

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

Timetable for implementation: Immediate


------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 15:35:29 -0500
From: ARIN <info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net>>
To: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in
        Section 4.10
Message-ID: <5474E811.40500 at arin.net<mailto:5474E811.40500 at arin.net>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk; format=flowed

On 20 November 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
"ARIN-prop-214 Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10" as a Draft Policy.

Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_22.html

You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft
Policy 2014-22 on the Public Policy Mailing List.

The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance
of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource
Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are:

   * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
   * Technically Sound
   * Supported by the Community

The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) 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,

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


## * ##


Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22
Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10

Date: 25 November 2014

Problem Statement:

The current section 4.10 Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6
Deployment creates an issue where a small new organization that requires
an IPv4 allocation or assignment would potentially receive a block that
today would be unroutable and therefore unusable for it intended purposes.

Policy statement:

Change

"This block will be subject to a minimum size allocation of /28 and a
maximum size allocation of /24. ARIN should use sparse allocation when
possible within that /10 block."

To

"This block will be subject to an allocation of /24. ARIN should use
sparse allocation when possible within that /10 block."

Timetable for implementation: Immediate


------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 00:53:04 -0500
From: Thomas Narten <narten at us.ibm.com<mailto:narten at us.ibm.com>>
To: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml at arin.net<mailto:ppml at arin.net>
Message-ID: <201411280553.sAS5r4he009466 at rotala.raleigh.ibm.com<mailto:201411280553.sAS5r4he009466 at rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Total of 5 messages in the last 7 days.

script run at: Fri Nov 28 00:53:03 EST 2014

    Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
 60.00% |    3 | 55.51% |    18354 | info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net>
 20.00% |    1 | 22.60% |     7473 | athompso at athompso.net<mailto:athompso at athompso.net>
 20.00% |    1 | 21.89% |     7240 | narten at us.ibm.com<mailto:narten at us.ibm.com>
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
100.00% |    5 |100.00% |    33067 | Total



------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 16:04:21 -0800
From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com<mailto:owen at delong.com>>
To: Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com<mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com>>
Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>" <arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Multi-homing justification removed?
Message-ID: <E2740FF8-B6A5-4891-A251-BD142F8A39F8 at delong.com<mailto:E2740FF8-B6A5-4891-A251-BD142F8A39F8 at delong.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

FWIW, Scott, your interpretation agrees with my recollection and my intents along the way.

I am not convinced that such a policy applied to the transfer market is a good idea. I believe that portable blocks place sufficient demand on internet resources that having a some number of hosts behind them (50%+) is not an unreasonable requirement regardless of whether the block is freshly minted from the RIR or recycled.

Owen

> On Nov 20, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com<mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Steve,
>
> I think your interpretation of 4.3.2.2 is incorrect.  That policy section was not the one that authorized the receipt of a (PA) /24 for multihoming.  That was, and still is, 4.2.3.6 <http://4.2.3.6/>:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four236 <https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four236>, which states that "The ISP will then verify the customer's multihoming requirement and may assign the customer a /24, based on this policy."
>
> 4.3.2.2 states that the minimum allocation size (from ARIN) for multihomed end users was a /24.  However, that did not allow you to get a /24 from ARIN just by becoming multihomed. If you were/are in that situation, you always had to (and still have to) get your /24 from your upstream if you don't meet ARIN's /24 utilizatinon criteria, and demonstrate efficient utilization before getting one from ARIN.
>
> If my understanding does not match how policy was implemented by staff prior to implementation of ARIN-2014-13 on 17 September 2014, someone please correct me, but that was the intent of the policy as I understand it.
>
> When discussing 2014-13, my sense of the community was that we did not want to authorize receipt of a /24 from ARIN solely based on multihoming, because that could possibly open up a land rush of organizations spun up solely for the purpose of getting a /24 from the free pool, holding it for the requisite time, and then selling it on the transfer market.  I personally would be more amenable to considering a policy change to liberalize the requirements for getting a /24 if/when they're available from the transfer market only.
>
> -Scott
>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Steve King <steve.king at iconaircraft.com<mailto:steve.king at iconaircraft.com> <mailto:steve.king at iconaircraft.com<mailto:steve.king at iconaircraft.com>>> wrote:
> Multi-homing was not a requirement.   It was an alternate justification.  I can?t honestly meet the 50% utilization requirement for a /24, but under the pre-September rules I qualified for a /24 under 4.3.2.2 because I contract with multiple carriers and want to participate in BGP for failover.
>
>
>
> Now that the language in 4.3.2.2 is gone, my reading is I have to either:
>
>
>
> a)      Lie about my utilization.  Not willing to do that.
>
> b)      Beg for a BGP-transferrable block from a carrier, and even then, deal with the fact that other ISPs are far more likely to aggregate and filter specific routes to large carrier-assigned blocks.  I end up with a less reliable failover solution.
>
>
>
> The policy revision is a significant step backward for me.  Maybe I?m enough of an edge case to not matter.  But ARIN-2014-13 stated 4.3.2.2 was redundant given the lowered minimum allocation in 4.3.2.1.  It was not redundant.  It covered a case that I think matters.
>
>
>
> The worst part is, I?m probably going to end up with two non-BGP transferrable /24s from two carriers (we all know they hand them out like candy with big circuits), so I?ll end up burning more IPV4 space than I otherwise would.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Steve King
>
> ICON Aircraft
>
>
>
> From: John Von Stein [mailto:John at qxccommunications.com<mailto:John at qxccommunications.com> <mailto:John at qxccommunications.com<mailto:John at qxccommunications.com>>]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:18 PM
> To: Richard J. Letts; Steve King; arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net> <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>>
> Subject: RE: Multi-homing justification removed?
>
>
>
> Speaking from recent / current experience, the multi-homing requirement is a bit of a challenge for tweener-sized organizations like QxC.  We are too big for underlying fiber carriers to comfortably continue to supply our need for IP addresses but not in the position to carry the financial, technical or operational challenges of multi-homing.  This was a very significant cost commitment for QxC and I can imagine this is not achievable for other like-sized ISPs.  Granted, we are better off for it now but had I known how much of a financial and technical hurdle this really was then I probably would not have done it.  I just needed more IP addresses to continue to grow my biz and would have much rather spent the money and manpower on marketing/sales/customer acquisition.  Multi-homing is a nice-to-have luxury that none of my customers are willing to pay for so it is simply a cost of entry to get the IP addresses we need to continue to grow our customer base.
>
>
>
> As such, I support dropping multi-homing as a prerequisite for an IP allocation.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> John W. Von Stein
>
> CEO
>
>
>
> <image001.jpg>
>
>
>
> 102 NE 2nd Street
>
> Suite 136
>
> Boca Raton, FL 33432
>
> Office: 561-288-6989<tel:561-288-6989> <tel:561-288-6989<tel:561-288-6989>>
> www.QxCcommunications.com<http://www.QxCcommunications.com> <http://www.qxccommunications.com/>
>
>
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
>
>
>
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>>] On Behalf Of Richard J. Letts
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 1:24 PM
> To: Steve King; arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net> <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Multi-homing justification removed?
>
>
>
> I believe the intent was there.
>
>
>
> orgs that have a justifiable/provable need for a /24 were been restricted by their current/lone provider being unwilling to give them enough address space. Not everyone has the ability to change providers, and if you can?t change providers then you certainly would not be able to multihome..
>
>
>
> Richard Letts
>
>
>
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>>] On Behalf Of Steve King
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:47 AM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net> <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>>
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Multi-homing justification removed?
>
>
>
> The changes implemented in ARIN-2014-13, specifically the removal of 4.3.2.2, appear to have removed the multi-homing justification for a /24 for end users.  Previously, the need to multi-home, and proof of contracts with multiple upstream providers, was sufficient to justify a /24 to participate in BGP.
>
>
>
> For reassignments from ISPs, the language remains in 4.2.3.6.  Users can justify a /24 via a requirement to multi-home rather than utilization rate.  However this revision appears to leave utilization rate as the only criterion for direct end-user assignments.
>
>
>
> Was this the intent or possibly an overlooked side effect of the change?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Steve King
>
> ICON Aircraft
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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> <mailto: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 <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
> Please contact info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net> <mailto:info at arin.net<mailto: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<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: <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141201/28186cf1/attachment.html>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
ARIN-PPML at arin.net<mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml

End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 114, Issue 1
*****************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141202/d33fa0a1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1468 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141202/d33fa0a1/attachment.jpg>

From kbrumund at dyn.com  Tue Dec  2 12:42:58 2014
From: kbrumund at dyn.com (Karl Brumund)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 12:42:58 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014:21.CI pool size
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A4A6325@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <CA+uaoiU6Y+qyXF2vmjVBWHsijbYODQMU2d7AKxs+E=k4S2AUiw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A4A6325@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <97FEFAFD-4069-4174-907B-1EF719AF6917@dyn.com>

As the Internet continues to grow, the amount of critical infrastructure within the Internet also continues to grow. While the ARIN region is more mature than other regions, we are still seeing this growth increase.
For these reasons, we support increasing the CI pool size.


?karl

Principal Engineer
Dyn


> On Dec 2, 2014, at 10:57 AM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
> 
> I support this as well.
>  
> Steven Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099- Office
>  
> <image001.jpg>? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>         Conquering Complex Networks?
>  
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Rudolph Daniel
> Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 7:03 AM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014:21.CI pool size
>  
> I Support this CI pool size increase.
> 
> Rudi Daniel
> 784 430 9235
> 
> On Dec 1, 2014 8:09 PM, <arin-ppml-request at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-request at arin.net>> wrote:
> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
>         arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         arin-ppml-request at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-request at arin.net>
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         arin-ppml-owner at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-owner at arin.net>
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Advisory Council Meeting Results - November 2014 (ARIN)
>    2. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per
>       Section 4.4 (ARIN)
>    3. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in  Section 4.10
>       (ARIN)
>    4. Weekly posting summary for ppml at arin.net <mailto:ppml at arin.net> (Thomas Narten)
>    5. Re: Multi-homing justification removed? (Owen DeLong)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 15:34:58 -0500
> From: ARIN <info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net>>
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - November 2014
> Message-ID: <5474E7F2.60606 at arin.net <mailto:5474E7F2.60606 at arin.net>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk; format=flowed
> 
> In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN
> Advisory Council (AC) met on 20 November 2014.
> 
> The AC recommended the following to the ARIN Board for adoption:
> 
>    Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-9: Resolve Conflict Between RSA
> and 8.2 Utilization Requirements
> 
> The AC accepted the following Proposals as a Draft Policies:
> 
>    ARIN-prop-213 Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4
>    ARIN-prop-214 Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10
> 
> The AC is continuing to work on the following:
> 
>    Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of Region Use
>    Draft Policy ARIN-2014-6: Remove 7.1 [Maintaining IN-ADDRs]
>    Draft Policy ARIN-2014-14: Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers
>    Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change Utilization Requirements from
> last-allocation to total-aggregate
>    Draft Policy ARIN-2014-19: New MDN Allocation Based on Past Utilization
> 
> Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html>
> 
> The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html <https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html>
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 15:35:15 -0500
> From: ARIN <info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net>>
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI
>         Pool Size per Section 4.4
> Message-ID: <5474E803.9020504 at arin.net <mailto:5474E803.9020504 at arin.net>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk; format=flowed
> 
> On 20 November 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
> "ARIN-prop-213 Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4" as a Draft
> Policy.
> 
> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21 is below and can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_21.html <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_21.html>
> 
> You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft
> Policy 2014-21 on the Public Policy Mailing List.
> 
> The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance
> of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource
> Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are:
> 
>    * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
>    * Technically Sound
>    * Supported by the Community
> 
> The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html <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 <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html>
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> 
> 
> ## * ##
> 
> 
> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21
> Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4
> 
> Date: 25 November 2014
> 
> Problem Statement:
> 
> At the time that this section of policy was written, IXP growth in North
> America was stagnant. Efforts of late have increased significantly
> within the IXP standards and other communities to improve critical
> infrastructure in North America. This effort is paying dividends and we
> project that a /16 will not be enough to continue to improve global
> interconnect conditions and support needed IXP CI infrastructure.
> 
> Policy statement:
> 
> Change to text in section 4.4 Micro Allocations:
> 
> Current text:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Proposed text to replace current text entirely:
> 
> ARIN will place an equivalent of a /15 of IPv4 address space in a
> reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4.
> 
> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 15:35:29 -0500
> From: ARIN <info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net>>
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in
>         Section 4.10
> Message-ID: <5474E811.40500 at arin.net <mailto:5474E811.40500 at arin.net>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk; format=flowed
> 
> On 20 November 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
> "ARIN-prop-214 Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10" as a Draft Policy.
> 
> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22 is below and can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_22.html <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_22.html>
> 
> You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft
> Policy 2014-22 on the Public Policy Mailing List.
> 
> The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance
> of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource
> Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are:
> 
>    * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
>    * Technically Sound
>    * Supported by the Community
> 
> The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html <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 <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html>
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> 
> 
> ## * ##
> 
> 
> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22
> Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10
> 
> Date: 25 November 2014
> 
> Problem Statement:
> 
> The current section 4.10 Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6
> Deployment creates an issue where a small new organization that requires
> an IPv4 allocation or assignment would potentially receive a block that
> today would be unroutable and therefore unusable for it intended purposes.
> 
> Policy statement:
> 
> Change
> 
> "This block will be subject to a minimum size allocation of /28 and a
> maximum size allocation of /24. ARIN should use sparse allocation when
> possible within that /10 block."
> 
> To
> 
> "This block will be subject to an allocation of /24. ARIN should use
> sparse allocation when possible within that /10 block."
> 
> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 00:53:04 -0500
> From: Thomas Narten <narten at us.ibm.com <mailto:narten at us.ibm.com>>
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml at arin.net <mailto:ppml at arin.net>
> Message-ID: <201411280553.sAS5r4he009466 at rotala.raleigh.ibm.com <mailto:201411280553.sAS5r4he009466 at rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> Total of 5 messages in the last 7 days.
> 
> script run at: Fri Nov 28 00:53:03 EST 2014
> 
>     Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
> --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
>  60.00% |    3 | 55.51% |    18354 | info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net>
>  20.00% |    1 | 22.60% |     7473 | athompso at athompso.net <mailto:athompso at athompso.net>
>  20.00% |    1 | 21.89% |     7240 | narten at us.ibm.com <mailto:narten at us.ibm.com>
> --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
> 100.00% |    5 |100.00% |    33067 | Total
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 16:04:21 -0800
> From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>>
> To: Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com <mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com>>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>" <arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Multi-homing justification removed?
> Message-ID: <E2740FF8-B6A5-4891-A251-BD142F8A39F8 at delong.com <mailto:E2740FF8-B6A5-4891-A251-BD142F8A39F8 at delong.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> FWIW, Scott, your interpretation agrees with my recollection and my intents along the way.
> 
> I am not convinced that such a policy applied to the transfer market is a good idea. I believe that portable blocks place sufficient demand on internet resources that having a some number of hosts behind them (50%+) is not an unreasonable requirement regardless of whether the block is freshly minted from the RIR or recycled.
> 
> Owen
> 
> > On Nov 20, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com <mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Steve,
> >
> > I think your interpretation of 4.3.2.2 is incorrect.  That policy section was not the one that authorized the receipt of a (PA) /24 for multihoming.  That was, and still is, 4.2.3.6 <http://4.2.3.6/ <http://4.2.3.6/>>:
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four236 <https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four236> <https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four236 <https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four236>>, which states that "The ISP will then verify the customer's multihoming requirement and may assign the customer a /24, based on this policy."
> >
> > 4.3.2.2 states that the minimum allocation size (from ARIN) for multihomed end users was a /24.  However, that did not allow you to get a /24 from ARIN just by becoming multihomed. If you were/are in that situation, you always had to (and still have to) get your /24 from your upstream if you don't meet ARIN's /24 utilizatinon criteria, and demonstrate efficient utilization before getting one from ARIN.
> >
> > If my understanding does not match how policy was implemented by staff prior to implementation of ARIN-2014-13 on 17 September 2014, someone please correct me, but that was the intent of the policy as I understand it.
> >
> > When discussing 2014-13, my sense of the community was that we did not want to authorize receipt of a /24 from ARIN solely based on multihoming, because that could possibly open up a land rush of organizations spun up solely for the purpose of getting a /24 from the free pool, holding it for the requisite time, and then selling it on the transfer market.  I personally would be more amenable to considering a policy change to liberalize the requirements for getting a /24 if/when they're available from the transfer market only.
> >
> > -Scott
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Steve King <steve.king at iconaircraft.com <mailto:steve.king at iconaircraft.com> <mailto:steve.king at iconaircraft.com <mailto:steve.king at iconaircraft.com>>> wrote:
> > Multi-homing was not a requirement.   It was an alternate justification.  I can?t honestly meet the 50% utilization requirement for a /24, but under the pre-September rules I qualified for a /24 under 4.3.2.2 because I contract with multiple carriers and want to participate in BGP for failover.
> >
> >
> >
> > Now that the language in 4.3.2.2 is gone, my reading is I have to either:
> >
> >
> >
> > a)      Lie about my utilization.  Not willing to do that.
> >
> > b)      Beg for a BGP-transferrable block from a carrier, and even then, deal with the fact that other ISPs are far more likely to aggregate and filter specific routes to large carrier-assigned blocks.  I end up with a less reliable failover solution.
> >
> >
> >
> > The policy revision is a significant step backward for me.  Maybe I?m enough of an edge case to not matter.  But ARIN-2014-13 stated 4.3.2.2 was redundant given the lowered minimum allocation in 4.3.2.1.  It was not redundant.  It covered a case that I think matters.
> >
> >
> >
> > The worst part is, I?m probably going to end up with two non-BGP transferrable /24s from two carriers (we all know they hand them out like candy with big circuits), so I?ll end up burning more IPV4 space than I otherwise would.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Steve King
> >
> > ICON Aircraft
> >
> >
> >
> > From: John Von Stein [mailto:John at qxccommunications.com <mailto:John at qxccommunications.com> <mailto:John at qxccommunications.com <mailto:John at qxccommunications.com>>]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:18 PM
> > To: Richard J. Letts; Steve King; arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net> <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>>
> > Subject: RE: Multi-homing justification removed?
> >
> >
> >
> > Speaking from recent / current experience, the multi-homing requirement is a bit of a challenge for tweener-sized organizations like QxC.  We are too big for underlying fiber carriers to comfortably continue to supply our need for IP addresses but not in the position to carry the financial, technical or operational challenges of multi-homing.  This was a very significant cost commitment for QxC and I can imagine this is not achievable for other like-sized ISPs.  Granted, we are better off for it now but had I known how much of a financial and technical hurdle this really was then I probably would not have done it.  I just needed more IP addresses to continue to grow my biz and would have much rather spent the money and manpower on marketing/sales/customer acquisition.  Multi-homing is a nice-to-have luxury that none of my customers are willing to pay for so it is simply a cost of entry to get the IP addresses we need to continue to grow our customer base.
> >
> >
> >
> > As such, I support dropping multi-homing as a prerequisite for an IP allocation.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > John W. Von Stein
> >
> > CEO
> >
> >
> >
> > <image001.jpg>
> >
> >
> >
> > 102 NE 2nd Street
> >
> > Suite 136
> >
> > Boca Raton, FL 33432
> >
> > Office: 561-288-6989 <tel:561-288-6989> <tel:561-288-6989 <tel:561-288-6989>>
> > www.QxCcommunications.com <http://www.qxccommunications.com/> <http://www.qxccommunications.com/ <http://www.qxccommunications.com/>>
> >
> >
> > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
> >
> >
> >
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>>] On Behalf Of Richard J. Letts
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 1:24 PM
> > To: Steve King; arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net> <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>>
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Multi-homing justification removed?
> >
> >
> >
> > I believe the intent was there.
> >
> >
> >
> > orgs that have a justifiable/provable need for a /24 were been restricted by their current/lone provider being unwilling to give them enough address space. Not everyone has the ability to change providers, and if you can?t change providers then you certainly would not be able to multihome..
> >
> >
> >
> > Richard Letts
> >
> >
> >
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>>] On Behalf Of Steve King
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:47 AM
> > To: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net> <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>>
> > Subject: [arin-ppml] Multi-homing justification removed?
> >
> >
> >
> > The changes implemented in ARIN-2014-13, specifically the removal of 4.3.2.2, appear to have removed the multi-homing justification for a /24 for end users.  Previously, the need to multi-home, and proof of contracts with multiple upstream providers, was sufficient to justify a /24 to participate in BGP.
> >
> >
> >
> > For reassignments from ISPs, the language remains in 4.2.3.6.  Users can justify a /24 via a requirement to multi-home rather than utilization rate.  However this revision appears to leave utilization rate as the only criterion for direct end-user assignments.
> >
> >
> >
> > Was this the intent or possibly an overlooked side effect of the change?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Steve King
> >
> > ICON Aircraft
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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> <mailto: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 <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>>
> > Please contact info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> <mailto:info at arin.net <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141201/28186cf1/attachment.html <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141201/28186cf1/attachment.html>>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML mailing list
> ARIN-PPML at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
> 
> End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 114, Issue 1
> *****************************************
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage 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/20141202/39d2b096/attachment.htm>

From rudi.daniel at gmail.com  Tue Dec  2 14:11:03 2014
From: rudi.daniel at gmail.com (Rudolph Daniel)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 14:11:03 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-21
Message-ID: <CA+uaoiWvDK=YrC_WdDXJTd32St8T-ZG7UKf=dUiWKfXtOY4OJA@mail.gmail.com>

In support of 2014-21...Yes, and more ixp s on the horizon, the countries
in Caribbean region within Arin are also still in the creation stage of
suitable CI.

Rudi Daniel
ICT consulting & lighting products
784 430 9235
On Dec 2, 2014 1:44 PM, <arin-ppml-request at arin.net> wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
>         arin-ppml at arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         arin-ppml-request at arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         arin-ppml-owner at arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: 2014:21.CI pool size (Karl Brumund)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 12:42:58 -0500
> From: Karl Brumund <kbrumund at dyn.com>
> To: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014:21.CI pool size
> Message-ID: <97FEFAFD-4069-4174-907B-1EF719AF6917 at dyn.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> As the Internet continues to grow, the amount of critical infrastructure
> within the Internet also continues to grow. While the ARIN region is more
> mature than other regions, we are still seeing this growth increase.
> For these reasons, we support increasing the CI pool size.
>
>
> ?karl
>
> Principal Engineer
> Dyn
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 2014, at 10:57 AM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I support this as well.
> >
> > Steven Ryerse
> > President
> > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> > 770.656.1460 - Cell
> > 770.399.9099- Office
> >
> > <image001.jpg>? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
> >         Conquering Complex Networks?
> >
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Rudolph Daniel
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 7:03 AM
> > To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014:21.CI pool size
> >
> > I Support this CI pool size increase.
> >
> > Rudi Daniel
> > 784 430 9235
> >
> > On Dec 1, 2014 8:09 PM, <arin-ppml-request at arin.net <mailto:
> arin-ppml-request at arin.net>> wrote:
> > Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
> >         arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >         http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml <
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >         arin-ppml-request at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-request at arin.net>
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> >         arin-ppml-owner at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-owner at arin.net>
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >    1. Advisory Council Meeting Results - November 2014 (ARIN)
> >    2. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per
> >       Section 4.4 (ARIN)
> >    3. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in  Section 4.10
> >       (ARIN)
> >    4. Weekly posting summary for ppml at arin.net <mailto:ppml at arin.net>
> (Thomas Narten)
> >    5. Re: Multi-homing justification removed? (Owen DeLong)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 15:34:58 -0500
> > From: ARIN <info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net>>
> > To: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> > Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - November 2014
> > Message-ID: <5474E7F2.60606 at arin.net <mailto:5474E7F2.60606 at arin.net>>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk; format=flowed
> >
> > In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN
> > Advisory Council (AC) met on 20 November 2014.
> >
> > The AC recommended the following to the ARIN Board for adoption:
> >
> >    Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-9: Resolve Conflict Between RSA
> > and 8.2 Utilization Requirements
> >
> > The AC accepted the following Proposals as a Draft Policies:
> >
> >    ARIN-prop-213 Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4
> >    ARIN-prop-214 Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10
> >
> > The AC is continuing to work on the following:
> >
> >    Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of Region Use
> >    Draft Policy ARIN-2014-6: Remove 7.1 [Maintaining IN-ADDRs]
> >    Draft Policy ARIN-2014-14: Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4
> Transfers
> >    Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change Utilization Requirements from
> > last-allocation to total-aggregate
> >    Draft Policy ARIN-2014-19: New MDN Allocation Based on Past
> Utilization
> >
> > Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available at:
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html <
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html>
> >
> > The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html <
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Communications and Member Services
> > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 15:35:15 -0500
> > From: ARIN <info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net>>
> > To: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> > Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI
> >         Pool Size per Section 4.4
> > Message-ID: <5474E803.9020504 at arin.net <mailto:5474E803.9020504 at arin.net
> >>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk; format=flowed
> >
> > On 20 November 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
> > "ARIN-prop-213 Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4" as a Draft
> > Policy.
> >
> > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21 is below and can be found at:
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_21.html <
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_21.html>
> >
> > You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft
> > Policy 2014-21 on the Public Policy Mailing List.
> >
> > The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance
> > of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource
> > Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are:
> >
> >    * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
> >    * Technically Sound
> >    * Supported by the Community
> >
> > The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at:
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html <
> 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 <
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Communications and Member Services
> > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> >
> >
> > ## * ##
> >
> >
> > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21
> > Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4
> >
> > Date: 25 November 2014
> >
> > Problem Statement:
> >
> > At the time that this section of policy was written, IXP growth in North
> > America was stagnant. Efforts of late have increased significantly
> > within the IXP standards and other communities to improve critical
> > infrastructure in North America. This effort is paying dividends and we
> > project that a /16 will not be enough to continue to improve global
> > interconnect conditions and support needed IXP CI infrastructure.
> >
> > Policy statement:
> >
> > Change to text in section 4.4 Micro Allocations:
> >
> > Current text:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Proposed text to replace current text entirely:
> >
> > ARIN will place an equivalent of a /15 of IPv4 address space in a
> > reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4.
> >
> > Timetable for implementation: Immediate
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 15:35:29 -0500
> > From: ARIN <info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net>>
> > To: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> > Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in
> >         Section 4.10
> > Message-ID: <5474E811.40500 at arin.net <mailto:5474E811.40500 at arin.net>>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk; format=flowed
> >
> > On 20 November 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
> > "ARIN-prop-214 Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10" as a Draft Policy.
> >
> > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22 is below and can be found at:
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_22.html <
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_22.html>
> >
> > You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft
> > Policy 2014-22 on the Public Policy Mailing List.
> >
> > The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance
> > of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource
> > Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are:
> >
> >    * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
> >    * Technically Sound
> >    * Supported by the Community
> >
> > The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at:
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html <
> 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 <
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Communications and Member Services
> > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> >
> >
> > ## * ##
> >
> >
> > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22
> > Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10
> >
> > Date: 25 November 2014
> >
> > Problem Statement:
> >
> > The current section 4.10 Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6
> > Deployment creates an issue where a small new organization that requires
> > an IPv4 allocation or assignment would potentially receive a block that
> > today would be unroutable and therefore unusable for it intended
> purposes.
> >
> > Policy statement:
> >
> > Change
> >
> > "This block will be subject to a minimum size allocation of /28 and a
> > maximum size allocation of /24. ARIN should use sparse allocation when
> > possible within that /10 block."
> >
> > To
> >
> > "This block will be subject to an allocation of /24. ARIN should use
> > sparse allocation when possible within that /10 block."
> >
> > Timetable for implementation: Immediate
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 4
> > Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 00:53:04 -0500
> > From: Thomas Narten <narten at us.ibm.com <mailto:narten at us.ibm.com>>
> > To: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> > Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml at arin.net <mailto:
> ppml at arin.net>
> > Message-ID: <201411280553.sAS5r4he009466 at rotala.raleigh.ibm.com <mailto:
> 201411280553.sAS5r4he009466 at rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >
> > Total of 5 messages in the last 7 days.
> >
> > script run at: Fri Nov 28 00:53:03 EST 2014
> >
> >     Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
> > --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
> >  60.00% |    3 | 55.51% |    18354 | info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net
> >
> >  20.00% |    1 | 22.60% |     7473 | athompso at athompso.net <mailto:
> athompso at athompso.net>
> >  20.00% |    1 | 21.89% |     7240 | narten at us.ibm.com <mailto:
> narten at us.ibm.com>
> > --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
> > 100.00% |    5 |100.00% |    33067 | Total
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 5
> > Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 16:04:21 -0800
> > From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>>
> > To: Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com <mailto:
> scottleibrand at gmail.com>>
> > Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>" <arin-ppml at arin.net
> <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>>
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Multi-homing justification removed?
> > Message-ID: <E2740FF8-B6A5-4891-A251-BD142F8A39F8 at delong.com <mailto:
> E2740FF8-B6A5-4891-A251-BD142F8A39F8 at delong.com>>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > FWIW, Scott, your interpretation agrees with my recollection and my
> intents along the way.
> >
> > I am not convinced that such a policy applied to the transfer market is
> a good idea. I believe that portable blocks place sufficient demand on
> internet resources that having a some number of hosts behind them (50%+) is
> not an unreasonable requirement regardless of whether the block is freshly
> minted from the RIR or recycled.
> >
> > Owen
> >
> > > On Nov 20, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com
> <mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Steve,
> > >
> > > I think your interpretation of 4.3.2.2 is incorrect.  That policy
> section was not the one that authorized the receipt of a (PA) /24 for
> multihoming.  That was, and still is, 4.2.3.6 <http://4.2.3.6/ <
> http://4.2.3.6/>>:
> > > https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four236 <
> https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four236> <
> https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four236 <
> https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four236>>, which states that "The
> ISP will then verify the customer's multihoming requirement and may assign
> the customer a /24, based on this policy."
> > >
> > > 4.3.2.2 states that the minimum allocation size (from ARIN) for
> multihomed end users was a /24.  However, that did not allow you to get a
> /24 from ARIN just by becoming multihomed. If you were/are in that
> situation, you always had to (and still have to) get your /24 from your
> upstream if you don't meet ARIN's /24 utilizatinon criteria, and
> demonstrate efficient utilization before getting one from ARIN.
> > >
> > > If my understanding does not match how policy was implemented by staff
> prior to implementation of ARIN-2014-13 on 17 September 2014, someone
> please correct me, but that was the intent of the policy as I understand it.
> > >
> > > When discussing 2014-13, my sense of the community was that we did not
> want to authorize receipt of a /24 from ARIN solely based on multihoming,
> because that could possibly open up a land rush of organizations spun up
> solely for the purpose of getting a /24 from the free pool, holding it for
> the requisite time, and then selling it on the transfer market.  I
> personally would be more amenable to considering a policy change to
> liberalize the requirements for getting a /24 if/when they're available
> from the transfer market only.
> > >
> > > -Scott
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Steve King <
> steve.king at iconaircraft.com <mailto:steve.king at iconaircraft.com> <mailto:
> steve.king at iconaircraft.com <mailto:steve.king at iconaircraft.com>>> wrote:
> > > Multi-homing was not a requirement.   It was an alternate
> justification.  I can?t honestly meet the 50% utilization requirement for a
> /24, but under the pre-September rules I qualified for a /24 under 4.3.2.2
> because I contract with multiple carriers and want to participate in BGP
> for failover.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Now that the language in 4.3.2.2 is gone, my reading is I have to
> either:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > a)      Lie about my utilization.  Not willing to do that.
> > >
> > > b)      Beg for a BGP-transferrable block from a carrier, and even
> then, deal with the fact that other ISPs are far more likely to aggregate
> and filter specific routes to large carrier-assigned blocks.  I end up with
> a less reliable failover solution.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The policy revision is a significant step backward for me.  Maybe I?m
> enough of an edge case to not matter.  But ARIN-2014-13 stated 4.3.2.2 was
> redundant given the lowered minimum allocation in 4.3.2.1.  It was not
> redundant.  It covered a case that I think matters.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The worst part is, I?m probably going to end up with two non-BGP
> transferrable /24s from two carriers (we all know they hand them out like
> candy with big circuits), so I?ll end up burning more IPV4 space than I
> otherwise would.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Steve King
> > >
> > > ICON Aircraft
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: John Von Stein [mailto:John at qxccommunications.com <mailto:
> John at qxccommunications.com> <mailto:John at qxccommunications.com <mailto:
> John at qxccommunications.com>>]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:18 PM
> > > To: Richard J. Letts; Steve King; arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:
> arin-ppml at arin.net> <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net
> >>
> > > Subject: RE: Multi-homing justification removed?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Speaking from recent / current experience, the multi-homing
> requirement is a bit of a challenge for tweener-sized organizations like
> QxC.  We are too big for underlying fiber carriers to comfortably continue
> to supply our need for IP addresses but not in the position to carry the
> financial, technical or operational challenges of multi-homing.  This was a
> very significant cost commitment for QxC and I can imagine this is not
> achievable for other like-sized ISPs.  Granted, we are better off for it
> now but had I known how much of a financial and technical hurdle this
> really was then I probably would not have done it.  I just needed more IP
> addresses to continue to grow my biz and would have much rather spent the
> money and manpower on marketing/sales/customer acquisition.  Multi-homing
> is a nice-to-have luxury that none of my customers are willing to pay for
> so it is simply a cost of entry to get the IP addresses we need to continue
> to grow our customer base.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As such, I support dropping multi-homing as a prerequisite for an IP
> allocation.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > >
> > > John W. Von Stein
> > >
> > > CEO
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > <image001.jpg>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 102 NE 2nd Street
> > >
> > > Suite 136
> > >
> > > Boca Raton, FL 33432
> > >
> > > Office: 561-288-6989 <tel:561-288-6989> <tel:561-288-6989 <tel:
> 561-288-6989>>
> > > www.QxCcommunications.com <http://www.qxccommunications.com/> <
> http://www.qxccommunications.com/ <http://www.qxccommunications.com/>>
> > >
> > >
> > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
> addressed.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>
> <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>>
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>
> <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>>]
> On Behalf Of Richard J. Letts
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 1:24 PM
> > > To: Steve King; arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>>
> > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Multi-homing justification removed?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I believe the intent was there.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > orgs that have a justifiable/provable need for a /24 were been
> restricted by their current/lone provider being unwilling to give them
> enough address space. Not everyone has the ability to change providers, and
> if you can?t change providers then you certainly would not be able to
> multihome..
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Richard Letts
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>
> <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>>
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>
> <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>>]
> On Behalf Of Steve King
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:47 AM
> > > To: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net> <mailto:
> arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>>
> > > Subject: [arin-ppml] Multi-homing justification removed?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The changes implemented in ARIN-2014-13, specifically the removal of
> 4.3.2.2, appear to have removed the multi-homing justification for a /24
> for end users.  Previously, the need to multi-home, and proof of contracts
> with multiple upstream providers, was sufficient to justify a /24 to
> participate in BGP.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > For reassignments from ISPs, the language remains in 4.2.3.6.  Users
> can justify a /24 via a requirement to multi-home rather than utilization
> rate.  However this revision appears to leave utilization rate as the only
> criterion for direct end-user assignments.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Was this the intent or possibly an overlooked side effect of the
> change?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Steve King
> > >
> > > ICON Aircraft
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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> <mailto: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 <
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> <
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml <
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>>
> > > Please contact info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> <mailto:
> info at arin.net <mailto: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 <mailto:
> 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 <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience
> any issues.
> >
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141201/28186cf1/attachment.html
> <
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141201/28186cf1/attachment.html
> >>
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ARIN-PPML mailing list
> > ARIN-PPML at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml <
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
> >
> > End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 114, Issue 1
> > *****************************************
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage 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: <
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141202/39d2b096/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML mailing list
> ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>
> End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 114, Issue 4
> *****************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141202/840947bb/attachment.htm>

From akg1330 at gmail.com  Thu Dec  4 10:31:35 2014
From: akg1330 at gmail.com (Andrew Gallo)
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 10:31:35 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] RPKI Relying Agreement
Message-ID: <54807E57.9020808@gmail.com>

(cross posted from NANOG)


Greetings:

In the past few months, I've spoken with, or heard second hand, from a 
number of organizations that will not or cannot sign ARIN's RPKI Relying 
Agreement.  Acceptance of this agreement is required in order to gain 
access to ARIN's Trust Anchor Locator (TAL).

Given the size and number of these organizations that can't or wont 
accept the agreement makes me wonder if this is a show stopper that will 
prevent the adoption of this technology.

I've created a quick survey to get an idea of the community's take on 
this agreement with the idea that if enough organizations indicate it is 
unacceptable, maybe we can get this agreement changed, or as with other 
regions, not explicitly required to use the TAL.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/10RLBBpL05n1c_H4unHitlsVqNM3rZI5aXAX8iSBc_Kk/viewform?usp=send_form 



Thank you


From athompso at athompso.net  Thu Dec  4 10:36:45 2014
From: athompso at athompso.net (Adam Thompson)
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 09:36:45 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] RPKI Relying Agreement
In-Reply-To: <54807E57.9020808@gmail.com>
References: <54807E57.9020808@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54807F8D.8040902@athompso.net>

On 14-12-04 09:31 AM, Andrew Gallo wrote:
> (cross posted from NANOG)
>
> Greetings:
>
> In the past few months, I've spoken with, or heard second hand, from a 
> number of organizations that will not or cannot sign ARIN's RPKI 
> Relying Agreement.  Acceptance of this agreement is required in order 
> to gain access to ARIN's Trust Anchor Locator (TAL).
>
> Given the size and number of these organizations that can't or wont 
> accept the agreement makes me wonder if this is a show stopper that 
> will prevent the adoption of this technology.
>
> I've created a quick survey to get an idea of the community's take on 
> this agreement with the idea that if enough organizations indicate it 
> is unacceptable, maybe we can get this agreement changed, or as with 
> other regions, not explicitly required to use the TAL.
>
> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/10RLBBpL05n1c_H4unHitlsVqNM3rZI5aXAX8iSBc_Kk/viewform?usp=send_form 
>

You seem to have left out one question in the survey: "even if you have 
signed the agreement, did you think it was ridiculous, legalistic, 
overbearing and paternalistic, anyway?"

-- 
-Adam Thompson
  athompso at athompso.net
  Cell: +1 204 291-7950
  Fax: +1 204 489-6515



From David.Huberman at microsoft.com  Thu Dec  4 10:51:53 2014
From: David.Huberman at microsoft.com (David Huberman)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 15:51:53 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] RPKI Relying Agreement
In-Reply-To: <54807E57.9020808@gmail.com>
References: <54807E57.9020808@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1417708317551.46121@microsoft.com>

Numerous members of the security and network engineering community and I have discussed this over the last 12 months, and the RPA is a show stopper for some of us.  Paragraphs 3 and 4 are the key. It's one way warranties (you -> ARIN), just like the RSA.  

It's thorny because if you put yourself in ARIN's shoes for a moment, you have to balance the risk of bankrupting the company with the responsibility of being a trust anchor.   Unfortunately, like many ARIN legal postures, the unwillingness to take on any risk at all is problematic.

I really hope the new Board takes this issue up again in 2015 - the unwillingness to accept any risk even though ARIN is a key part of the internet community, and the one-sidedness of its legal agreements due to same.

David R Huberman
Microsoft Corporation
Principal, Global IP Addressing

________________________________________
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> on behalf of Andrew Gallo <akg1330 at gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2014 7:31 AM
To: ARIN-PPML at arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] RPKI Relying Agreement

(cross posted from NANOG)


Greetings:

In the past few months, I've spoken with, or heard second hand, from a
number of organizations that will not or cannot sign ARIN's RPKI Relying
Agreement.  Acceptance of this agreement is required in order to gain
access to ARIN's Trust Anchor Locator (TAL).

Given the size and number of these organizations that can't or wont
accept the agreement makes me wonder if this is a show stopper that will
prevent the adoption of this technology.

I've created a quick survey to get an idea of the community's take on
this agreement with the idea that if enough organizations indicate it is
unacceptable, maybe we can get this agreement changed, or as with other
regions, not explicitly required to use the TAL.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/10RLBBpL05n1c_H4unHitlsVqNM3rZI5aXAX8iSBc_Kk/viewform?usp=send_form



Thank you
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage 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  Thu Dec  4 10:55:47 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 15:55:47 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] RPKI Relying Agreement
In-Reply-To: <54807E57.9020808@gmail.com>
References: <54807E57.9020808@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4E2E28DB-ED5B-44B4-BB61-8E11F0CB1BFB@corp.arin.net>

Andrew - 
 
   It would be helpful to ask whether the responder is presently using 
   RPKI services at any of the following other RIRs (check as many as 
   applicable), as similar terms of indemnification are contained within 
   the other RIR agreements governing their RPKI services.

Thanks!
/John  

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

> On Dec 4, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Andrew Gallo <akg1330 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> (cross posted from NANOG)
> 
> 
> Greetings:
> 
> In the past few months, I've spoken with, or heard second hand, from a number of organizations that will not or cannot sign ARIN's RPKI Relying Agreement.  Acceptance of this agreement is required in order to gain access to ARIN's Trust Anchor Locator (TAL).
> 
> Given the size and number of these organizations that can't or wont accept the agreement makes me wonder if this is a show stopper that will prevent the adoption of this technology.
> 
> I've created a quick survey to get an idea of the community's take on this agreement with the idea that if enough organizations indicate it is unacceptable, maybe we can get this agreement changed, or as with other regions, not explicitly required to use the TAL.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/10RLBBpL05n1c_H4unHitlsVqNM3rZI5aXAX8iSBc_Kk/viewform?usp=send_form 
> 
> 
> Thank you
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage 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  Thu Dec  4 10:59:31 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 15:59:31 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] RPKI Relying Agreement
In-Reply-To: <1417708317551.46121@microsoft.com>
References: <54807E57.9020808@gmail.com> <1417708317551.46121@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <59DC8423-9E03-49E5-8295-E7771EC9D290@corp.arin.net>

On Dec 4, 2014, at 10:51 AM, David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> Numerous members of the security and network engineering community and I have discussed this over the last 12 months, and the RPA is a show stopper for some of us.  Paragraphs 3 and 4 are the key. It's one way warranties (you -> ARIN), just like the RSA.  
> 
> It's thorny because if you put yourself in ARIN's shoes for a moment, you have to balance the risk of bankrupting the company with the responsibility of being a trust anchor.   Unfortunately, like many ARIN legal postures, the unwillingness to take on any risk at all is problematic.

Actually, the terms regarding indemnification and warrant disclaimer are nearly 
identical to that contained in the other RIR's RPKI agreements; are those also
problematic, or is the difficultly that principally that ARIN agreeing to the 
terms explicit rather than implicit?

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From cb.list6 at gmail.com  Thu Dec  4 11:00:32 2014
From: cb.list6 at gmail.com (Ca By)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 08:00:32 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] RPKI Relying Agreement
In-Reply-To: <1417708317551.46121@microsoft.com>
References: <54807E57.9020808@gmail.com>
	<1417708317551.46121@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGRLyST2n40-p6Ah2n-V4GjhuiSR0CWZZMiDy1X87mEwwA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:51 AM, David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com
> wrote:

> Numerous members of the security and network engineering community and I
> have discussed this over the last 12 months, and the RPA is a show stopper
> for some of us.  Paragraphs 3 and 4 are the key. It's one way warranties
> (you -> ARIN), just like the RSA.
>
> It's thorny because if you put yourself in ARIN's shoes for a moment, you
> have to balance the risk of bankrupting the company with the responsibility
> of being a trust anchor.   Unfortunately, like many ARIN legal postures,
> the unwillingness to take on any risk at all is problematic.
>
>
I am always told ARIN is the community.

community = networks

ARIN = commuity

networks = ARIN

Networks want to transfer risk: Network -> ARIN

ARIN wants to transfer risk from ARIN -> Networks

but, ARIN = Networks = Community ....so it is moot since transfer risk from
yourself to yourself is meaningless.

That said, networks are more distributed than ARIN from a liability
perspective, so better for networks to absorb risk.

No?

CB


> I really hope the new Board takes this issue up again in 2015 - the
> unwillingness to accept any risk even though ARIN is a key part of the
> internet community, and the one-sidedness of its legal agreements due to
> same.
>
> David R Huberman
> Microsoft Corporation
> Principal, Global IP Addressing
>
> ________________________________________
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> on behalf
> of Andrew Gallo <akg1330 at gmail.com>
> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2014 7:31 AM
> To: ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] RPKI Relying Agreement
>
> (cross posted from NANOG)
>
>
> Greetings:
>
> In the past few months, I've spoken with, or heard second hand, from a
> number of organizations that will not or cannot sign ARIN's RPKI Relying
> Agreement.  Acceptance of this agreement is required in order to gain
> access to ARIN's Trust Anchor Locator (TAL).
>
> Given the size and number of these organizations that can't or wont
> accept the agreement makes me wonder if this is a show stopper that will
> prevent the adoption of this technology.
>
> I've created a quick survey to get an idea of the community's take on
> this agreement with the idea that if enough organizations indicate it is
> unacceptable, maybe we can get this agreement changed, or as with other
> regions, not explicitly required to use the TAL.
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/10RLBBpL05n1c_H4unHitlsVqNM3rZI5aXAX8iSBc_Kk/viewform?usp=send_form
>
>
>
> Thank you
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141204/c762d009/attachment.htm>

From David.Huberman at microsoft.com  Thu Dec  4 11:24:59 2014
From: David.Huberman at microsoft.com (David Huberman)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 16:24:59 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] RPKI Relying Agreement
In-Reply-To: <59DC8423-9E03-49E5-8295-E7771EC9D290@corp.arin.net>
References: <54807E57.9020808@gmail.com> <1417708317551.46121@microsoft.com>,
	<59DC8423-9E03-49E5-8295-E7771EC9D290@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <DM2PR03MB398D51614B4CFFF5719FF709B780@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>

The problem is straight forward I think:

If I spend the time to integrate route origination validation into my routing system (programming values into the actual configs), and for whatever reason:

- ARIN terminates my RPA, as the RPA allows ARIN to do; or
- ARIN's general RPKI framework is unavailable

... my routing decisions are affected and breakage happens.

ARIN needs to rep and warranty that the service will be up, and that the agreement will not be terminated without significant cause and lengthy notice.

David R Huberman
Microsoft Corporation
Principal, Global IP Addressing

________________________________________
From: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2014 7:59:31 AM
To: David Huberman
Cc: Andrew Gallo; ARIN-PPML at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] RPKI Relying Agreement

On Dec 4, 2014, at 10:51 AM, David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> Numerous members of the security and network engineering community and I have discussed this over the last 12 months, and the RPA is a show stopper for some of us.  Paragraphs 3 and 4 are the key. It's one way warranties (you -> ARIN), just like the RSA.
>
> It's thorny because if you put yourself in ARIN's shoes for a moment, you have to balance the risk of bankrupting the company with the responsibility of being a trust anchor.   Unfortunately, like many ARIN legal postures, the unwillingness to take on any risk at all is problematic.

Actually, the terms regarding indemnification and warrant disclaimer are nearly
identical to that contained in the other RIR's RPKI agreements; are those also
problematic, or is the difficultly that principally that ARIN agreeing to the
terms explicit rather than implicit?

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From akg1330 at gmail.com  Thu Dec  4 11:25:29 2014
From: akg1330 at gmail.com (Andrew Gallo)
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 11:25:29 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] RPKI Relying Agreement
In-Reply-To: <4E2E28DB-ED5B-44B4-BB61-8E11F0CB1BFB@corp.arin.net>
References: <54807E57.9020808@gmail.com>
	<4E2E28DB-ED5B-44B4-BB61-8E11F0CB1BFB@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <54808AF9.1060108@gmail.com>

Thanks John.  That is a good point, though I would counter that there is 
a difference between the implied agreement that the other registries 
have vs the explicit, click-through agreement ARIN uses.

This could start a whole debate on the strength of an implied agree vs. 
click-though vs. an ink-and-paper agreement.

My point is that I'm concerned the community is silently rejecting the 
agreement. If there is dissatisfaction in the community, I would like to 
try to organize it and turn it into useful and constructive feedback.

RPKI adoption in the ARIN region is lagging behind others.  I understand 
that creating ROAs and validating them are different processes (one 
requiring accepting the Relying agreement, the other not), but I wonder 
how many people are opting out of RPKI all together to avoid the issue 
entirely.

Thank you.




On 12/4/2014 10:55 AM, John Curran wrote:
> Andrew -
>   
>     It would be helpful to ask whether the responder is presently using
>     RPKI services at any of the following other RIRs (check as many as
>     applicable), as similar terms of indemnification are contained within
>     the other RIR agreements governing their RPKI services.
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
>> On Dec 4, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Andrew Gallo <akg1330 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> (cross posted from NANOG)
>>
>>
>> Greetings:
>>
>> In the past few months, I've spoken with, or heard second hand, from a number of organizations that will not or cannot sign ARIN's RPKI Relying Agreement.  Acceptance of this agreement is required in order to gain access to ARIN's Trust Anchor Locator (TAL).
>>
>> Given the size and number of these organizations that can't or wont accept the agreement makes me wonder if this is a show stopper that will prevent the adoption of this technology.
>>
>> I've created a quick survey to get an idea of the community's take on this agreement with the idea that if enough organizations indicate it is unacceptable, maybe we can get this agreement changed, or as with other regions, not explicitly required to use the TAL.
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/10RLBBpL05n1c_H4unHitlsVqNM3rZI5aXAX8iSBc_Kk/viewform?usp=send_form
>>
>>
>> Thank you
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage 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 David.Huberman at microsoft.com  Thu Dec  4 11:26:22 2014
From: David.Huberman at microsoft.com (David Huberman)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 16:26:22 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] RPKI Relying Agreement
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGRLyST2n40-p6Ah2n-V4GjhuiSR0CWZZMiDy1X87mEwwA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54807E57.9020808@gmail.com> <1417708317551.46121@microsoft.com>,
	<CAD6AjGRLyST2n40-p6Ah2n-V4GjhuiSR0CWZZMiDy1X87mEwwA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DM2PR03MB398907E05D73504A9E12A1E9B780@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>

CB:

I'd normally agree with this.  I'd rather take risk as Microsoft than have ARIN take the risk.

But consider:   We pay for ARIN services, but ARIN refuses to warranty that the services we pay for (rDNS, RPKI, and Whois) will be available.

Why doesn't the RSA warranty those basic and critical operational services?

David R Huberman
Microsoft Corporation
Principal, Global IP Addressing
________________________________
From: Ca By <cb.list6 at gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2014 8:00:32 AM
To: David Huberman
Cc: Andrew Gallo; ARIN-PPML at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] RPKI Relying Agreement



On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:51 AM, David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com<mailto:David.Huberman at microsoft.com>> wrote:
Numerous members of the security and network engineering community and I have discussed this over the last 12 months, and the RPA is a show stopper for some of us.  Paragraphs 3 and 4 are the key. It's one way warranties (you -> ARIN), just like the RSA.

It's thorny because if you put yourself in ARIN's shoes for a moment, you have to balance the risk of bankrupting the company with the responsibility of being a trust anchor.   Unfortunately, like many ARIN legal postures, the unwillingness to take on any risk at all is problematic.


I am always told ARIN is the community.

community = networks

ARIN = commuity

networks = ARIN

Networks want to transfer risk: Network -> ARIN

ARIN wants to transfer risk from ARIN -> Networks

but, ARIN = Networks = Community ....so it is moot since transfer risk from yourself to yourself is meaningless.

That said, networks are more distributed than ARIN from a liability perspective, so better for networks to absorb risk.

No?

CB

I really hope the new Board takes this issue up again in 2015 - the unwillingness to accept any risk even though ARIN is a key part of the internet community, and the one-sidedness of its legal agreements due to same.

David R Huberman
Microsoft Corporation
Principal, Global IP Addressing

________________________________________
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>> on behalf of Andrew Gallo <akg1330 at gmail.com<mailto:akg1330 at gmail.com>>
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2014 7:31 AM
To: ARIN-PPML at arin.net<mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>
Subject: [arin-ppml] RPKI Relying Agreement

(cross posted from NANOG)


Greetings:

In the past few months, I've spoken with, or heard second hand, from a
number of organizations that will not or cannot sign ARIN's RPKI Relying
Agreement.  Acceptance of this agreement is required in order to gain
access to ARIN's Trust Anchor Locator (TAL).

Given the size and number of these organizations that can't or wont
accept the agreement makes me wonder if this is a show stopper that will
prevent the adoption of this technology.

I've created a quick survey to get an idea of the community's take on
this agreement with the idea that if enough organizations indicate it is
unacceptable, maybe we can get this agreement changed, or as with other
regions, not explicitly required to use the TAL.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/10RLBBpL05n1c_H4unHitlsVqNM3rZI5aXAX8iSBc_Kk/viewform?usp=send_form



Thank you
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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/20141204/d6fe0bd9/attachment.htm>

From michael+ppml at burnttofu.net  Thu Dec  4 12:25:48 2014
From: michael+ppml at burnttofu.net (Michael Sinatra)
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 09:25:48 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] RPKI Relying Agreement
In-Reply-To: <59DC8423-9E03-49E5-8295-E7771EC9D290@corp.arin.net>
References: <54807E57.9020808@gmail.com> <1417708317551.46121@microsoft.com>
	<59DC8423-9E03-49E5-8295-E7771EC9D290@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <5480991C.2060301@burnttofu.net>

On 12/04/2014 07:59, John Curran wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2014, at 10:51 AM, David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> Numerous members of the security and network engineering community and I have discussed this over the last 12 months, and the RPA is a show stopper for some of us.  Paragraphs 3 and 4 are the key. It's one way warranties (you -> ARIN), just like the RSA.  
>>
>> It's thorny because if you put yourself in ARIN's shoes for a moment, you have to balance the risk of bankrupting the company with the responsibility of being a trust anchor.   Unfortunately, like many ARIN legal postures, the unwillingness to take on any risk at all is problematic.
> 
> Actually, the terms regarding indemnification and warrant disclaimer are nearly 
> identical to that contained in the other RIR's RPKI agreements; are those also
> problematic, or is the difficultly that principally that ARIN agreeing to the 
> terms explicit rather than implicit?

I disagree.  The only terms I was able to find were APNIC's and they
only referred to "Certificates issued by APNIC," not a TAL.  So I really
don't think there is another TAL RPA out there that's anything like ARIN's.

michael




From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Dec  4 12:33:15 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 17:33:15 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] RPKI Relying Agreement
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR03MB398907E05D73504A9E12A1E9B780@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <54807E57.9020808@gmail.com> <1417708317551.46121@microsoft.com> <,
	> <CAD6AjGRLyST2n40-p6Ah2n-V4GjhuiSR0CWZZMiDy1X87mEwwA@mail.gmail.com>
	<DM2PR03MB398907E05D73504A9E12A1E9B780@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <7BEEC5CF-B052-40E9-A882-501383D55695@corp.arin.net>

On Dec 4, 2014, at 11:26 AM, David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com<mailto:David.Huberman at microsoft.com>> wrote:

I'd normally agree with this.  I'd rather take risk as Microsoft than have ARIN take the risk.

But consider:   We pay for ARIN services, but ARIN refuses to warranty that the services we pay for (rDNS, RPKI, and Whois) will be available.

Why doesn't the RSA warranty those basic and critical operational services?

The reason that the RIRs have disclaimer of warranty and indemnification clauses
for RPKI services is actually quite simple: despite striving to deliver highly available
RPKI services, you are supposed to be using best practices in use of the service,
and this include recognizing that failures can occur and such should not result in
operation impact (i.e. exactly the opposite of your ?my routing decisions are affected
and breakage happens? statement in your prior email.)   Specifically, your RPKI
deployment approach should be following known operational best practices for
RPKI, such as those in RFC 7115 / BCP 185, "Origin Validation Operation Based
on the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)? -
   ?? Local policy using relative preference is suggested to manage the uncertainty
    associated with a system in early deployment; local policy can be applied to
    eliminate the threat of unreachability of prefixes due to ill-advised certification
    policies and/or incorrect certification data. ?

Note that the claims that could ensue from an operator failing to follow best practices
and then third-parties suffering an major operational outage is likely to be large and
extremely protracted, with potential for endangering the registry itself due to the nature
of litigation and its requirement to actually go to all the way to trial in order to be able
to then introduce evidence and prove that the RPKI services were operating properly
at the time of the event.  If the RIRs did not seek indemnification for use of the RPKI
services, then all of their other registry services could potentially be put at risk due to
the need to defend errant litigation, even presuming perfect RPKI service delivery.
Undertaking that risk to the other services that everyone else presently rely upon
(Whois, reverse DNS) is not reasonable particularly during this time when the RPKI
parties are supposed to be deploying via conservative routing preference practices.

ARIN does make the expectations very clear and explicit in its agreements, and that
is different from the other RIRs.  Again, are the other RIR RPKI non-warranty and
indemnification clauses equally problematic for you, or is the fact that they are
implicitly bound address your concerns?  This has come up before on the NANOG
mailing list (see attached) but it was unclear if the outcome was an expectation that
all RIRs should drop these clauses, or that ARIN should make agreement to them
be implicit.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

===
Begin forwarded message:

Subject: Re: APNIC RPKI TAL agreement
From: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:jcurran at arin.net>>
Date: October 16, 2014 at 7:30:48 PM EDT
Cc: Wes George <wesley.george at twcable.com<mailto:wesley.george at twcable.com>>, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com<mailto:randy at psg.com>>, "Geoff Huston" <gih at apnic.net<mailto:gih at apnic.net>>
To: Michael Sinatra <michael at burnttofu.net<mailto:michael at burnttofu.net>>

On Oct 16, 2014, at 3:19 PM, Michael Sinatra <michael at burnttofu.net<mailto:michael at burnttofu.net>> wrote:

Hi John:

At NANOG 62, you mentioned that APNIC has a similar agreement as ARIN to
use its trust-anchor locator (TAL), but that it is not a click-through
agreement like ARIN's.  I have searched using basic google-foo for this
agreement, and have also looked on APNIC's certificate rsync server
(which also has an HTTP interface) and I can't find it.  Can you, or any
other recipient of this message who is familiar with the APNIC
agreement, point me in the right direction?

Michael -

Review <http://www.apnic.net/services/manage-resources/digital-certificates/terms-and-conditions>
wherein there is a limitation of liability and requirement that a recipient of any digital certificate
will indemnify APNIC against any and all claims by third parties for damages of any kind arising
from the use of that certificate. (last two bullets)

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141204/96107582/attachment.htm>

From michael+ppml at burnttofu.net  Thu Dec  4 12:54:05 2014
From: michael+ppml at burnttofu.net (Michael Sinatra)
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 09:54:05 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] RPKI Relying Agreement
In-Reply-To: <7BEEC5CF-B052-40E9-A882-501383D55695@corp.arin.net>
References: <54807E57.9020808@gmail.com> <1417708317551.46121@microsoft.com> <,
	>
	<CAD6AjGRLyST2n40-p6Ah2n-V4GjhuiSR0CWZZMiDy1X87mEwwA@mail.gmail.com>	<DM2PR03MB398907E05D73504A9E12A1E9B780@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<7BEEC5CF-B052-40E9-A882-501383D55695@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <54809FBD.3010607@burnttofu.net>

On 12/04/2014 09:33, John Curran wrote:

>> Review
>> <http://www.apnic.net/services/manage-resources/digital-certificates/terms-and-conditions> 
>> wherein there is a limitation of liability and requirement that a
>> recipient of any digital certificate 
>> will indemnify APNIC against any and all claims by third parties for
>> damages of any kind arising 
>> from the use of that certificate. (last two bullets)

And as I mentioned to you in response, that final bullet applies to
"recipients of certificates issued by APNIC," so I would expect it to
apply to someone who has an EE cert for a set of resources, NOT to
someone who is using a trust anchor locator to validate the EE cert and
the ROAs derived from it.

If you take the interpretation that anyone who validates an APNIC cert
is indemnifying APNIC, then anyone who visits a website using TLS, where
the website has an APNIC cert as its TLS cert, is also indemnifying
APNIC.  IANAL, but I don't think anyone would see such an interpretation
as reasonable.

At any rate, I discussed this at an RPKI workshop at the Internet2 Tech
Exchange, and many of the EDU-types that I talked to there are in a
similar boat as I am--their organizations flat-out won't let them sign
such an agreement.  We're not going to have any reasonable uptake of
RPKI deployment with a TAL agreement like this one--it's a show stopper
for many organizations.

As always, I reserve the right to be wrong, and I look forward to seeing
the results of the survey, which I have completed on behalf of my
organization (ESnet, operated by the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab,
which is in turn operated by the University of California).

michael



From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Dec  4 13:01:35 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 18:01:35 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] RPKI Relying Agreement
In-Reply-To: <5480991C.2060301@burnttofu.net>
References: <54807E57.9020808@gmail.com> <1417708317551.46121@microsoft.com>
	<59DC8423-9E03-49E5-8295-E7771EC9D290@corp.arin.net>
	<5480991C.2060301@burnttofu.net>
Message-ID: <D6D973F4-C1D2-4D20-9AD5-88AADC4B9AC9@arin.net>

On Dec 4, 2014, at 12:25 PM, Michael Sinatra <michael+ppml at burnttofu.net> wrote:
> 
> On 12/04/2014 07:59, John Curran wrote:
>> ...
>> Actually, the terms regarding indemnification and warrant disclaimer are nearly 
>> identical to that contained in the other RIR's RPKI agreements; are those also
>> problematic, or is the difficultly that principally that ARIN agreeing to the 
>> terms explicit rather than implicit?
> 
> I disagree.  The only terms I was able to find were APNIC's and they
> only referred to "Certificates issued by APNIC," not a TAL.  So I really
> don't think there is another TAL RPA out there that's anything like ARIN's.

Michael - 

 APNIC "CA Terms and Conditions" states "The recipient of any digital certificates issued by the APNIC CA service will indemnify APNIC against any and all claims by third parties for damages of any kind arising from the use of that certificate."

 Relying parties (even if not subscribers to the CA) are any 
 entities that act in reliance on certificates in the CA, so
 the terms and conditions would be applicable.  How they go
 about obtaining the TAL doesn't change the indemnification 
 asserted by APNIC.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN






From bill at herrin.us  Thu Dec  4 13:12:09 2014
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 13:12:09 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] RPKI Relying Agreement
In-Reply-To: <59DC8423-9E03-49E5-8295-E7771EC9D290@corp.arin.net>
References: <54807E57.9020808@gmail.com> <1417708317551.46121@microsoft.com>
	<59DC8423-9E03-49E5-8295-E7771EC9D290@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGWVj7=f_WSfoGUrZ83J8yRf0oJjAczsfk=SOhmXZaYKtQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 10:59 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> Actually, the terms regarding indemnification and warrant disclaimer are
nearly
> identical to that contained in the other RIR's RPKI agreements; are those
also
> problematic, or is the difficultly that principally that ARIN agreeing to
the
> terms explicit rather than implicit?

Hi John,

I've seen a lot of hand waving, but I still have no clue how the
publication of RPKI data places ARIN at a different risk than publication
of registration data via whois.  I think if we could better understand
that, we'd be better able to advise you.

Do we beat down your door and insist you freely publish the data? Do we
pursue the creation of some new organization to manage RPKI, one with
intentionally shallow pockets, and ask ARIN to cede the function? Something
else? I think we all need a better understanding of the legal issue before
we can zero in on what might work.

For sure ARIN's current solution, a contract few will sign, is
unsatisfactory.


>  APNIC "CA Terms and Conditions" states "The recipient of any digital
> certificates issued by the APNIC CA service will indemnify APNIC
> against any and all claims by third parties for damages of any kind
> arising from the use of that certificate."
>  How they go
>  about obtaining the TAL doesn't change the indemnification
>  asserted by APNIC.

If we all ran to the lawyers every time someone "asserted" yet another bit
of unenforceable gobbledygook, no one would ever do anything at all. That's
worlds away from explicitly signing an agreement. If asserting a terms of
use in this manner will allow ARIN to "safely" publish the relying party
data to anonymous recipients then by all means, let's do it and get it done.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
May I solve your unusual networking challenges?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141204/5a9a2140/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Dec  4 13:53:41 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 18:53:41 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] RPKI Relying Agreement
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWVj7=f_WSfoGUrZ83J8yRf0oJjAczsfk=SOhmXZaYKtQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54807E57.9020808@gmail.com> <1417708317551.46121@microsoft.com>
	<59DC8423-9E03-49E5-8295-E7771EC9D290@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGWVj7=f_WSfoGUrZ83J8yRf0oJjAczsfk=SOhmXZaYKtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D55D4A81-F4E7-4844-A69D-CE70ED4E5A95@arin.net>

On Dec 4, 2014, at 1:12 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us<mailto:bill at herrin.us>> wrote:

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 10:59 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:
> Actually, the terms regarding indemnification and warrant disclaimer are nearly
> identical to that contained in the other RIR's RPKI agreements; are those also
> problematic, or is the difficultly that principally that ARIN agreeing to the
> terms explicit rather than implicit?

Hi John,

I've seen a lot of hand waving, but I still have no clue how the publication of RPKI data places ARIN at a different risk than publication of registration data via whois.

Bill -

  Parties are likely to use RPKI services such that (as someone put
  it recently) - "routing decisions are affected and breakage happens?

  While such impacts could happen with whois, parties would have to
  create the linkages themselves, whereas with RPKI it is recognized
  that the system is designed to provide information for influencing of
  routing decisions (a major difference, and one that a judge could be
  made to recognize if some service provider has a prolonged outage
  due to their own self-inflicted Whois data wrangling into routing filters.)

  Given the nature of RPKI, it is clear that ARIN needs to engineer the
  service with full awareness of the potential risks (even though such
  risks are predominantly the result of parties using RPKI data without
  appropriate best practices.)   We have no problem offering a highly-
  reliable service; the risk of concern stems from third-parties who suffer
  major damages and want to assert that it was the result of an ISP?s
  misusage of ARIN?s RPKI service or ARIN?s RPKI service itself, even
  if the underlying cause in truth was completely unrelated to ARIN?s
  RPKI services.  Recognize that large harmed parties tend to litigate
  everyone, with the innocent parties extracting themselves only after
  lengthy battles, and such battles are very difficult when it comes to
  proving the proper state of technical service at a given point in time.

  I hope this helps in outlining some of the significant differences.

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141204/d8a418e8/attachment.htm>

From michael+ppml at burnttofu.net  Thu Dec  4 14:03:00 2014
From: michael+ppml at burnttofu.net (Michael Sinatra)
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 11:03:00 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] RPKI Relying Agreement
In-Reply-To: <D55D4A81-F4E7-4844-A69D-CE70ED4E5A95@arin.net>
References: <54807E57.9020808@gmail.com>
	<1417708317551.46121@microsoft.com>	<59DC8423-9E03-49E5-8295-E7771EC9D290@corp.arin.net>	<CAP-guGWVj7=f_WSfoGUrZ83J8yRf0oJjAczsfk=SOhmXZaYKtQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<D55D4A81-F4E7-4844-A69D-CE70ED4E5A95@arin.net>
Message-ID: <5480AFE4.8030704@burnttofu.net>

On 12/04/2014 10:53, John Curran wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2014, at 1:12 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us
> <mailto:bill at herrin.us>> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 10:59 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net
>> <mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:
>> > Actually, the terms regarding indemnification and warrant disclaimer
>> are nearly
>> > identical to that contained in the other RIR's RPKI agreements; are
>> those also
>> > problematic, or is the difficultly that principally that ARIN
>> agreeing to the
>> > terms explicit rather than implicit?
>>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> I've seen a lot of hand waving, but I still have no clue how the
>> publication of RPKI data places ARIN at a different risk than
>> publication of registration data via whois. 
> 
> Bill - 
>  
>   Parties are likely to use RPKI services such that (as someone put
>   it recently) - "routing decisions are affected and breakage happens? 
> 
>   While such impacts could happen with whois,

I know of at least one major ISP that derives its routing filters from
the (non-RPKI) IRR data, including ARIN's IRR.  If your route disappears
from the IRR, you don't get routed.  I don't they they're the only ones
who do this.  It certainly wouldn't surprise me if folks used whois in a
similar manner.

ARIN probably has a third-party indemnification clause for its IRR also, no?


From bill at herrin.us  Thu Dec  4 14:43:53 2014
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 14:43:53 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] RPKI Relying Agreement
In-Reply-To: <D55D4A81-F4E7-4844-A69D-CE70ED4E5A95@arin.net>
References: <54807E57.9020808@gmail.com> <1417708317551.46121@microsoft.com>
	<59DC8423-9E03-49E5-8295-E7771EC9D290@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGWVj7=f_WSfoGUrZ83J8yRf0oJjAczsfk=SOhmXZaYKtQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<D55D4A81-F4E7-4844-A69D-CE70ED4E5A95@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGX_6XwmQ4nagzAYicJbLPs3p-COMv83V6aFOsufvj-QYg@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:53 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>   Parties are likely to use RPKI services such that (as someone put
>   it recently) - "routing decisions are affected and breakage happens?
>
>   While such impacts could happen with whois, parties would have to
>   create the linkages themselves, whereas with RPKI it is recognized
>   that the system is designed to provide information for influencing of
>   routing decisions (a major difference, and one that a judge could be
>   made to recognize if some service provider has a prolonged outage
>   due to their own self-inflicted Whois data wrangling into routing
filters.)

Hi John,

So along the risk line with whois at one end and spam RBLs at the other,
RPKI sounds almost identical to the risk of deploying DNSSEC. Or am I
missing something that makes RPKI more risky?

Regards,
Bill Herrin




--
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
May I solve your unusual networking challenges?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141204/b974dbe3/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Dec  4 14:56:27 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 19:56:27 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] RPKI Relying Agreement
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGX_6XwmQ4nagzAYicJbLPs3p-COMv83V6aFOsufvj-QYg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54807E57.9020808@gmail.com> <1417708317551.46121@microsoft.com>
	<59DC8423-9E03-49E5-8295-E7771EC9D290@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGWVj7=f_WSfoGUrZ83J8yRf0oJjAczsfk=SOhmXZaYKtQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<D55D4A81-F4E7-4844-A69D-CE70ED4E5A95@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGX_6XwmQ4nagzAYicJbLPs3p-COMv83V6aFOsufvj-QYg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5EB89A5F-B303-40F1-8E9A-6E1FD890F950@arin.net>

On Dec 4, 2014, at 2:43 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us<mailto:bill at herrin.us>> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:53 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:
>   Parties are likely to use RPKI services such that (as someone put
>   it recently) - "routing decisions are affected and breakage happens?
>
>   While such impacts could happen with whois, parties would have to
>   create the linkages themselves, whereas with RPKI it is recognized
>   that the system is designed to provide information for influencing of
>   routing decisions (a major difference, and one that a judge could be
>   made to recognize if some service provider has a prolonged outage
>   due to their own self-inflicted Whois data wrangling into routing filters.)

Hi John,

So along the risk line with whois at one end and spam RBLs at the other, RPKI sounds almost identical to the risk of deploying DNSSEC. Or am I missing something that makes RPKI more risky?

Bill -

    You asked for a comparison between whois and RPKI in terms of
    risk profile and I provided that.   ARIN doesn?t run spam RBLs, but
    you can seek out those who do and ask them why they think that
    may be more risky than RPKI services, if you so wish.

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141204/5c251074/attachment.htm>

From michael+ppml at burnttofu.net  Thu Dec  4 16:28:40 2014
From: michael+ppml at burnttofu.net (Michael Sinatra)
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 13:28:40 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] RPKI Relying Agreement
In-Reply-To: <D6D973F4-C1D2-4D20-9AD5-88AADC4B9AC9@arin.net>
References: <54807E57.9020808@gmail.com> <1417708317551.46121@microsoft.com>
	<59DC8423-9E03-49E5-8295-E7771EC9D290@corp.arin.net>
	<5480991C.2060301@burnttofu.net>
	<D6D973F4-C1D2-4D20-9AD5-88AADC4B9AC9@arin.net>
Message-ID: <5480D208.7010408@burnttofu.net>

On 12/04/2014 10:01, John Curran wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2014, at 12:25 PM, Michael Sinatra <michael+ppml at burnttofu.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/04/2014 07:59, John Curran wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Actually, the terms regarding indemnification and warrant disclaimer are nearly 
>>> identical to that contained in the other RIR's RPKI agreements; are those also
>>> problematic, or is the difficultly that principally that ARIN agreeing to the 
>>> terms explicit rather than implicit?
>>
>> I disagree.  The only terms I was able to find were APNIC's and they
>> only referred to "Certificates issued by APNIC," not a TAL.  So I really
>> don't think there is another TAL RPA out there that's anything like ARIN's.
> 
> Michael - 
> 
>  APNIC "CA Terms and Conditions" states "The recipient of any digital certificates issued by the APNIC CA service will indemnify APNIC against any and all claims by third parties for damages of any kind arising from the use of that certificate."
> 
>  Relying parties (even if not subscribers to the CA) are any 
>  entities that act in reliance on certificates in the CA, so
>  the terms and conditions would be applicable.  How they go
>  about obtaining the TAL doesn't change the indemnification 
>  asserted by APNIC.

Just for clarification, so that folks understand what we're talking
about, a TAL, or trust-anchor locator, is basically an rsync URI
followed by a public key (so that the trust anchor cert can be
validated).  It is not a certificate.  So, it would seem analogous to an
https URL combined with the CA public keys that are bundled with most
web browsers, except that it doesn't include the full CA certificate.

ARIN requires the click-through signature just to acquire that URI plus
public key, in order to allow someone to validate those resources
located in the ARIN region.  Again, this is different from what APNIC
requires.

And the validation process that John states is covered by the APNIC
agreement is very close to the same process a web browser uses to
validate an SSL/TLS certificate.  So I still have a hard time believing
that it is APNIC's intention that I am supposed to indemnify them every
time I validate a web server certificate that is issued by them.  On a
related note, I can download APNIC's root cert from APNIC's website
without even looking at their terms and conditions.

The indemnification clause in question predates the offering of resource
certification services by APNIC, so again, I question the intent of this
clause.  This is in contrast to ARIN's RPA, which defines the relying
party specifically in relation to the use of the online resource
certification PKI and is careful to include in its scope not only
receiving a certificate, but using any information located in that
certificate.  To me, what ARIN is specifying is very different than what
APNIC is specifying.

The issue is not to say that somewhere, somehow, someone might make the
argument that resource certification in the APNIC region falls under
some obscure indemnity clause.  The issue is that what ARIN is making me
agree to is not "nearly identical" to what APNIC, or any other RIR,
appears to be doing.

All of that said, I really do understand ARIN's risk perspective, and I
appreciate John's willingness to spell that out.  I wish there were a
legal framework that said "everyone is responsible for their own
screw-ups and needs to follow best practices to defend themselves
against the screw-ups of others."  Unfortunately the current framework
seems to create incentives for non-deployment of RPKI in the ARIN
region, and the proof is pretty much in the pudding.

michael

PS. Sorry for the long email.  I'll refrain from further posts to this
thread.



From David.Huberman at microsoft.com  Thu Dec  4 16:37:56 2014
From: David.Huberman at microsoft.com (David Huberman)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 21:37:56 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] RPKI Relying Agreement
In-Reply-To: <5480D208.7010408@burnttofu.net>
References: <54807E57.9020808@gmail.com> <1417708317551.46121@microsoft.com>
	<59DC8423-9E03-49E5-8295-E7771EC9D290@corp.arin.net>
	<5480991C.2060301@burnttofu.net>
	<D6D973F4-C1D2-4D20-9AD5-88AADC4B9AC9@arin.net>,
	<5480D208.7010408@burnttofu.net>
Message-ID: <DM2PR03MB3980D56AC1DAE351E2838DC9B780@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>

It's a good email Michael.  The bottom line (as I see it) is the ARIN Board is saying "you must do it this way" and the community is saying "no".  Nobody is winning here.  I urge the Board to reconsider its position, as I believe the RIRs are the right parties to hold the trust anchor for route origination mechanisms, so we need to work together (Board and operators community) to find an acceptable middle ground.

David R Huberman
Microsoft Corporation
Principal, Global IP Addressing

________________________________________
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> on behalf of Michael Sinatra <michael+ppml at burnttofu.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2014 1:28:40 PM
To: John Curran
Cc: ARIN-PPML at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] RPKI Relying Agreement

On 12/04/2014 10:01, John Curran wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2014, at 12:25 PM, Michael Sinatra <michael+ppml at burnttofu.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/04/2014 07:59, John Curran wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Actually, the terms regarding indemnification and warrant disclaimer are nearly
>>> identical to that contained in the other RIR's RPKI agreements; are those also
>>> problematic, or is the difficultly that principally that ARIN agreeing to the
>>> terms explicit rather than implicit?
>>
>> I disagree.  The only terms I was able to find were APNIC's and they
>> only referred to "Certificates issued by APNIC," not a TAL.  So I really
>> don't think there is another TAL RPA out there that's anything like ARIN's.
>
> Michael -
>
>  APNIC "CA Terms and Conditions" states "The recipient of any digital certificates issued by the APNIC CA service will indemnify APNIC against any and all claims by third parties for damages of any kind arising from the use of that certificate."
>
>  Relying parties (even if not subscribers to the CA) are any
>  entities that act in reliance on certificates in the CA, so
>  the terms and conditions would be applicable.  How they go
>  about obtaining the TAL doesn't change the indemnification
>  asserted by APNIC.

Just for clarification, so that folks understand what we're talking
about, a TAL, or trust-anchor locator, is basically an rsync URI
followed by a public key (so that the trust anchor cert can be
validated).  It is not a certificate.  So, it would seem analogous to an
https URL combined with the CA public keys that are bundled with most
web browsers, except that it doesn't include the full CA certificate.

ARIN requires the click-through signature just to acquire that URI plus
public key, in order to allow someone to validate those resources
located in the ARIN region.  Again, this is different from what APNIC
requires.

And the validation process that John states is covered by the APNIC
agreement is very close to the same process a web browser uses to
validate an SSL/TLS certificate.  So I still have a hard time believing
that it is APNIC's intention that I am supposed to indemnify them every
time I validate a web server certificate that is issued by them.  On a
related note, I can download APNIC's root cert from APNIC's website
without even looking at their terms and conditions.

The indemnification clause in question predates the offering of resource
certification services by APNIC, so again, I question the intent of this
clause.  This is in contrast to ARIN's RPA, which defines the relying
party specifically in relation to the use of the online resource
certification PKI and is careful to include in its scope not only
receiving a certificate, but using any information located in that
certificate.  To me, what ARIN is specifying is very different than what
APNIC is specifying.

The issue is not to say that somewhere, somehow, someone might make the
argument that resource certification in the APNIC region falls under
some obscure indemnity clause.  The issue is that what ARIN is making me
agree to is not "nearly identical" to what APNIC, or any other RIR,
appears to be doing.

All of that said, I really do understand ARIN's risk perspective, and I
appreciate John's willingness to spell that out.  I wish there were a
legal framework that said "everyone is responsible for their own
screw-ups and needs to follow best practices to defend themselves
against the screw-ups of others."  Unfortunately the current framework
seems to create incentives for non-deployment of RPKI in the ARIN
region, and the proof is pretty much in the pudding.

michael

PS. Sorry for the long email.  I'll refrain from further posts to this
thread.

_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage 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 athompso at athompso.net  Thu Dec  4 17:07:26 2014
From: athompso at athompso.net (Adam Thompson)
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 16:07:26 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] RPKI Relying Agreement
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR03MB3980D56AC1DAE351E2838DC9B780@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <54807E57.9020808@gmail.com> <1417708317551.46121@microsoft.com>
	<59DC8423-9E03-49E5-8295-E7771EC9D290@corp.arin.net>
	<5480991C.2060301@burnttofu.net>
	<D6D973F4-C1D2-4D20-9AD5-88AADC4B9AC9@arin.net>,
	<5480D208.7010408@burnttofu.net>
	<DM2PR03MB3980D56AC1DAE351E2838DC9B780@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CDB6FA50-F908-4489-A2B6-D84A356D18F9@athompso.net>

If ARIN's legal counsel feels there is no way to avoid requiring *explicit* legal agreement prior to using RPKI data (as distinct from *publishing* RPKI data) then I would suggest that there is a clear community consensus just based on what I've heard here and at ARIN 34.

Unfortunately, the dialog between ARIN and its community boils down to "the business and legal climate in the United States is too hostile to permit easy and widespread use of RPKI data".

If ARIN can't find a way around that problem, perhaps they should consider reincorporating somewhere more conducive to business... (Maybe even in a country where the government is the only 3rd-party actor you have to worry about?)

>From a Canadian standpoint, this entire argument is ridiculous... (So far, anyway. Sadly, we're catching up.)

<pet-peeve>Either way, this is an example of what I said previously about US-centrism being a problem.</horse>

-Adam Thompson

On December 4, 2014 3:37:56 PM CST, David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:
>It's a good email Michael.  The bottom line (as I see it) is the ARIN
>Board is saying "you must do it this way" and the community is saying
>"no".  Nobody is winning here.  I urge the Board to reconsider its
>position, as I believe the RIRs are the right parties to hold the trust
>anchor for route origination mechanisms, so we need to work together
>(Board and operators community) to find an acceptable middle ground.
>
>David R Huberman
>Microsoft Corporation
>Principal, Global IP Addressing
>
>________________________________________
>From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> on behalf
>of Michael Sinatra <michael+ppml at burnttofu.net>
>Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2014 1:28:40 PM
>To: John Curran
>Cc: ARIN-PPML at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] RPKI Relying Agreement
>
>On 12/04/2014 10:01, John Curran wrote:
>> On Dec 4, 2014, at 12:25 PM, Michael Sinatra
><michael+ppml at burnttofu.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/04/2014 07:59, John Curran wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> Actually, the terms regarding indemnification and warrant
>disclaimer are nearly
>>>> identical to that contained in the other RIR's RPKI agreements; are
>those also
>>>> problematic, or is the difficultly that principally that ARIN
>agreeing to the
>>>> terms explicit rather than implicit?
>>>
>>> I disagree.  The only terms I was able to find were APNIC's and they
>>> only referred to "Certificates issued by APNIC," not a TAL.  So I
>really
>>> don't think there is another TAL RPA out there that's anything like
>ARIN's.
>>
>> Michael -
>>
>>  APNIC "CA Terms and Conditions" states "The recipient of any digital
>certificates issued by the APNIC CA service will indemnify APNIC
>against any and all claims by third parties for damages of any kind
>arising from the use of that certificate."
>>
>>  Relying parties (even if not subscribers to the CA) are any
>>  entities that act in reliance on certificates in the CA, so
>>  the terms and conditions would be applicable.  How they go
>>  about obtaining the TAL doesn't change the indemnification
>>  asserted by APNIC.
>
>Just for clarification, so that folks understand what we're talking
>about, a TAL, or trust-anchor locator, is basically an rsync URI
>followed by a public key (so that the trust anchor cert can be
>validated).  It is not a certificate.  So, it would seem analogous to
>an
>https URL combined with the CA public keys that are bundled with most
>web browsers, except that it doesn't include the full CA certificate.
>
>ARIN requires the click-through signature just to acquire that URI plus
>public key, in order to allow someone to validate those resources
>located in the ARIN region.  Again, this is different from what APNIC
>requires.
>
>And the validation process that John states is covered by the APNIC
>agreement is very close to the same process a web browser uses to
>validate an SSL/TLS certificate.  So I still have a hard time believing
>that it is APNIC's intention that I am supposed to indemnify them every
>time I validate a web server certificate that is issued by them.  On a
>related note, I can download APNIC's root cert from APNIC's website
>without even looking at their terms and conditions.
>
>The indemnification clause in question predates the offering of
>resource
>certification services by APNIC, so again, I question the intent of
>this
>clause.  This is in contrast to ARIN's RPA, which defines the relying
>party specifically in relation to the use of the online resource
>certification PKI and is careful to include in its scope not only
>receiving a certificate, but using any information located in that
>certificate.  To me, what ARIN is specifying is very different than
>what
>APNIC is specifying.
>
>The issue is not to say that somewhere, somehow, someone might make the
>argument that resource certification in the APNIC region falls under
>some obscure indemnity clause.  The issue is that what ARIN is making
>me
>agree to is not "nearly identical" to what APNIC, or any other RIR,
>appears to be doing.
>
>All of that said, I really do understand ARIN's risk perspective, and I
>appreciate John's willingness to spell that out.  I wish there were a
>legal framework that said "everyone is responsible for their own
>screw-ups and needs to follow best practices to defend themselves
>against the screw-ups of others."  Unfortunately the current framework
>seems to create incentives for non-deployment of RPKI in the ARIN
>region, and the proof is pretty much in the pudding.
>
>michael
>
>PS. Sorry for the long email.  I'll refrain from further posts to this
>thread.
>
>_______________________________________________
>PPML
>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>Unsubscribe or manage 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.

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141204/ad7db305/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Dec  4 18:10:53 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 23:10:53 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] RPKI Relying Agreement
In-Reply-To: <CDB6FA50-F908-4489-A2B6-D84A356D18F9@athompso.net>
References: <54807E57.9020808@gmail.com> <1417708317551.46121@microsoft.com>
	<59DC8423-9E03-49E5-8295-E7771EC9D290@corp.arin.net>
	<5480991C.2060301@burnttofu.net>
	<D6D973F4-C1D2-4D20-9AD5-88AADC4B9AC9@arin.net> <,>
	<5480D208.7010408@burnttofu.net>
	<DM2PR03MB3980D56AC1DAE351E2838DC9B780@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<CDB6FA50-F908-4489-A2B6-D84A356D18F9@athompso.net>
Message-ID: <70C07625-F016-4D40-8CFC-1BB334B05422@arin.net>

On Dec 4, 2014, at 5:07 PM, Adam Thompson <athompso at athompso.net> wrote:
> 
> If ARIN's legal counsel feels there is no way to avoid requiring *explicit* legal agreement prior to using RPKI data (as distinct from *publishing* RPKI data) then I would suggest that there is a clear community consensus just based on what I've heard here and at ARIN 34.
> 
> Unfortunately, the dialog between ARIN and its community boils down to "the business and legal climate in the United States is too hostile to permit easy and widespread use of RPKI data".
> 
> If ARIN can't find a way around that problem, perhaps they should consider reincorporating somewhere more conducive to business... 

Adam - 
 
  As noted already, having a click-accept RPA provides higher certainty when managing
  litigation risk from those relying on RPKI data.  Another option to simply state the terms
  (e.g. indemnification) that apply to those using your CA, and then rely on implicit binding. 
  A third-option is to include the necessary language in an existing agreement (such as 
  the member or registry agreement) and not worrying about those who are just 
  accessing the data.

  Each RIR is taking their own approach to this problem, and you?re unlikely to find a 
  jurisdiction where services can be offered with _no_ risk at all (note - if you do find such 
  a place, then it?s so "conducive to business? that your own service providers are likely
  to have no obligations to you?)

  We can switch to an implied agreement (as has been used in other regions); if that 
  does address the concern, it means that folks are more willing to be implicitly bound
  by terms unseen than explicitly accepting an agreement with known terms.

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN


From narten at us.ibm.com  Fri Dec  5 00:53:03 2014
From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten)
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 00:53:03 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net
Message-ID: <201412050553.sB55r3NT030159@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>

Total of 29 messages in the last 7 days.
 
script run at: Fri Dec  5 00:53:03 EST 2014
 
    Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
 24.14% |    7 | 14.00% |    75319 | jcurran at arin.net
  6.90% |    2 | 21.41% |   115196 | rudi.daniel at gmail.com
 13.79% |    4 |  8.24% |    44338 | david.huberman at microsoft.com
 13.79% |    4 |  5.33% |    28698 | michael+ppml at burnttofu.net
  3.45% |    1 | 14.28% |    76858 | kbrumund at dyn.com
  3.45% |    1 | 13.65% |    73440 | sryerse at eclipse-networks.com
  6.90% |    2 |  8.30% |    44690 | owen at delong.com
  6.90% |    2 |  4.73% |    25463 | athompso at athompso.net
  6.90% |    2 |  3.47% |    18697 | bill at herrin.us
  6.90% |    2 |  2.74% |    14760 | akg1330 at gmail.com
  3.45% |    1 |  2.62% |    14119 | cb.list6 at gmail.com
  3.45% |    1 |  1.22% |     6563 | narten at us.ibm.com
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
100.00% |   29 |100.00% |   538141 | Total



From athompso at athompso.net  Fri Dec  5 14:21:37 2014
From: athompso at athompso.net (Adam Thompson)
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 13:21:37 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] RPKI Relying Agreement
In-Reply-To: <70C07625-F016-4D40-8CFC-1BB334B05422@arin.net>
References: <54807E57.9020808@gmail.com> <1417708317551.46121@microsoft.com>
	<59DC8423-9E03-49E5-8295-E7771EC9D290@corp.arin.net>
	<5480991C.2060301@burnttofu.net>
	<D6D973F4-C1D2-4D20-9AD5-88AADC4B9AC9@arin.net> <,
	> <5480D208.7010408@burnttofu.net>
	<DM2PR03MB3980D56AC1DAE351E2838DC9B780@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<CDB6FA50-F908-4489-A2B6-D84A356D18F9@athompso.net>
	<70C07625-F016-4D40-8CFC-1BB334B05422@arin.net>
Message-ID: <548205C1.3050606@athompso.net>

(BTW: yes, I was joking about moving ARIN to some [mythical] corrupt 
3rd-world country.  Mostly.  I think.)

Clearly there's intractable resistance to an explicit agreement from 
larger members.  Even the smallest of constituents (e.g. me) aren't 
terribly happy with it, but I also know I'm small enough that there's no 
point in a large company suing me.

Equally, U.S. courts have already upheld click-wrap licenses, at least 
in principle if not always in all the details.

Somewhere in between is the implicit license, which legally seems to be 
similar to but not identical to the click-wrap license.

The WHOIS data comes with a license/T&C embedded, for example, despite 
the fact it has very little operational impact.

DNSSEC validation does not have any embedded license or T&C that I've 
noticed, and seems at least as (probably more) prone to causing 
"outages" as RPKI would.

If RPKI switches to implicit licensing, you could put the link (like 
WHOIS) in the rsync banner.  I'm unsure if that would be sufficient.


 From the corporate standpoint:

1. Explicit agreements are vetted by legal staff, whose focus is 
typically on liability prevention and don't have a good technical 
understanding.  It then becomes an actively managed object in the legal 
department.  ("Actively" just means a file is created and kept track 
of.)  If litigation occurs, company officers are typically involved and 
may be directly liable.

2. Implicit agreements are agreed to every day by staff who typically 
lack the authority to bind the corporation to the agreed-to terms, but 
who typically have a good technical understanding of whether the 
license/Ts&Cs should be accepted or not.  The company then has several 
avenues of self-defence if litigation occurs - use the employee as a 
scapegoat, fire the employee, claim that it wasn't binding to begin 
with, counter-sue, etc. - and officers of the corporation are less 
likely to suffer significant penalties.

(IANAL - that's merely a layman's summary of what I've learned from my 
lawyer, the former general counsel for a large telecom provider here.  
My understanding, furthermore, is the fundamental principles in this 
analysis are very similar between Canada and the US.)

I know which one I prefer from a defensibility standpoint.

-Adam




On December 4, 2014 5:10:53 PM CST, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

    On Dec 4, 2014, at 5:07 PM, Adam Thompson <athompso at athompso.net> wrote:

        If ARIN's legal counsel feels there is no way to avoid requiring
        *explicit* legal agreement prior to using RPKI data (as distinct
        from *publishing* RPKI data) then I would suggest that there is
        a clear community consensus just based on what I've heard here
        and at ARIN 34. Unfortunately, the dialog between ARIN and its
        community boils down to "the business and legal climate in the
        United States is too hostile to permit easy and widespread use
        of RPKI data". If ARIN can't find a way around that problem,
        perhaps they should consider reincorporating somewhere more
        conducive to business... 


    Adam -
      
       As noted already, having a click-accept RPA provides higher certainty when managing
       litigation risk from those relying on RPKI data.  Another option to simply state the terms
       (e.g. indemnification) that apply to those using your CA, and then rely on implicit binding.
       A third-option is to include the necessary language in an existing agreement (such as
       the member or registry agreement) and not worrying about those who are just
       accessing the data.

       Each RIR is taking their own approach to this problem, and you?re unlikely to find a
       jurisdiction where services can be offered with _no_ risk at all (note - if you do find such
       a place, then it?s so "conducive to business? that your own service providers are likely
       to have no obligations to you?)

       We can switch to an implied agreement (as has been used in other regions); if that
       does address the concern, it means that folks are more willing to be implicitly bound
       by terms unseen than explicitly accepting an agreement with known terms.

    /John

    John Curran
    President and CEO
    ARIN

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141205/a66a3d8f/attachment.htm>

From bill at herrin.us  Fri Dec  5 15:09:49 2014
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 15:09:49 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] RPKI Relying Agreement
In-Reply-To: <5EB89A5F-B303-40F1-8E9A-6E1FD890F950@arin.net>
References: <54807E57.9020808@gmail.com> <1417708317551.46121@microsoft.com>
	<59DC8423-9E03-49E5-8295-E7771EC9D290@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGWVj7=f_WSfoGUrZ83J8yRf0oJjAczsfk=SOhmXZaYKtQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<D55D4A81-F4E7-4844-A69D-CE70ED4E5A95@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGX_6XwmQ4nagzAYicJbLPs3p-COMv83V6aFOsufvj-QYg@mail.gmail.com>
	<5EB89A5F-B303-40F1-8E9A-6E1FD890F950@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGVJvs2=G_XFCRje8dERsUQ4-kWd+Fcw8CvBQpkk5qKRcw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:56 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2014, at 2:43 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:53 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> >   Parties are likely to use RPKI services such that (as someone put
> >   it recently) - "routing decisions are affected and breakage happens?
> >
> >   While such impacts could happen with whois, parties would have to
> >   create the linkages themselves, whereas with RPKI it is recognized
> >   that the system is designed to provide information for influencing of
> >   routing decisions (a major difference, and one that a judge could be
> >   made to recognize if some service provider has a prolonged outage
> >   due to their own self-inflicted Whois data wrangling into routing
filters.)
>
> So along the risk line with whois at one end and spam RBLs at the other,
RPKI sounds almost identical to the risk of deploying DNSSEC. Or am I
missing something that makes RPKI more risky?
>
>
> Bill -
>
>     You asked for a comparison between whois and RPKI in terms of
>     risk profile and I provided that.   ARIN doesn?t run spam RBLs, but
>     you can seek out those who do and ask them why they think that
>     may be more risky than RPKI services, if you so wish.
>

Hi John,

Yes, I did, and thank you for the explanation. I guess what I'm looking for
-now- is a sanity-check on what I presume is counsel's advice that
publishing the relying party information absent a contract is too high risk
for ARIN to undertake.

>From my perspective, we're looking at one of two possibilities here:

1. The risk is overblown, ARIN counsel's version of "This product not
intended for use as a dental drill." That means: go tell counsel to give
you the best options available with publication to anonymous recipients as
a core requirement.

2. The risk is correctly assessed. McDonalds scalding coffee just waiting
for someone to get burned. Best guess, that means abandon RPKI altogether,
seek legislation protecting the publishers of RPKI data or cede the
function to a separate organization capable of managing the risk.

Which is it? Need a sanity check. That means finding precedent: some kind
of general publication comparable to RPKI relying party data which has been
around long enough to build up a record of litigation.


Candidate comparable: SPAM RBL. Publishes data indicating sources of
unsolicited bulk mail. Intentionally results in denial of service for those
sources. Have been sued. Mixed success for the litigants.  Comparable to
RPKI? Why or why not?

Candidate comparable: DNSSEC. Publishes data which identifies authentic
name to IP address lookups. Failure to use correctly results in the
effective failure of the effected service until the error is resolved.  No
record of any suit. Comparable to RPKI? Why or why not?

Candidate comparable: Passive hosting of third party content. Section 230
of the Communications Decency Act confers broad immunity to liability for
such publication regardless of the nature of the information published.
Some suits. Generally not successful. Comparable to RPKI? Why or why not?

Am I making sense?


Regards,
Bill Herrin



--
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
May I solve your unusual networking challenges?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141205/ccd7a459/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at arin.net  Sun Dec  7 09:16:41 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 14:16:41 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] RPKI Relying Agreement
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVJvs2=G_XFCRje8dERsUQ4-kWd+Fcw8CvBQpkk5qKRcw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54807E57.9020808@gmail.com> <1417708317551.46121@microsoft.com>
	<59DC8423-9E03-49E5-8295-E7771EC9D290@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGWVj7=f_WSfoGUrZ83J8yRf0oJjAczsfk=SOhmXZaYKtQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<D55D4A81-F4E7-4844-A69D-CE70ED4E5A95@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGX_6XwmQ4nagzAYicJbLPs3p-COMv83V6aFOsufvj-QYg@mail.gmail.com>
	<5EB89A5F-B303-40F1-8E9A-6E1FD890F950@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGVJvs2=G_XFCRje8dERsUQ4-kWd+Fcw8CvBQpkk5qKRcw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5AA827A8-E7FA-47EA-8456-0B876E1F65F7@arin.net>

On Dec 5, 2014, at 3:09 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> From my perspective, we're looking at one of two possibilities here:
> 
> 1. The risk is overblown, ARIN counsel's version of "This product not intended for use as a dental drill." That means: go tell counsel to give you the best options available with publication to anonymous recipients as a core requirement. 
> 
> 2. The risk is correctly assessed. McDonalds scalding coffee just waiting for someone to get burned. Best guess, that means abandon RPKI altogether, seek legislation protecting the publishers of RPKI data or cede the function to a separate organization capable of managing the risk.
> 
> Which is it? Need a sanity check. That means finding precedent: some kind of general publication comparable to RPKI relying party data which has been around long enough to build up a record of litigation.

Bill - 
 
    You?d think that would be a reasonable approach, but legal issues
    generally don?t work that way.  Instead, they hinge on the specific 
    circumstances of the services and the terms under which they are
    provided.  

    Resource certification via RPKI poses a particularly complicated 
    set of circumstances, involving multiple parties and technologies
    which are not in common use today.   Use of RPKI for route origin 
    validation is possible without posing operational risk, but it requires
    attention to numerous operational details (e.g. as per RFC 7115) 
    If there is any production impact due to RPKI usage (e.g. a major 
    financial institution unable to communicate with its business partner, 
    a hospital unable to communicate for telemedicine work, etc.) then 
    the process of determining how the failure occurred will be a highly 
    technical endeavor, and it is not clear that failure on the part of a 
    relying party to implement best practices would be mitigate liability
    of ARIN, the attesting ISP, or any parties in the certification hierarchy
    (even though it is quite clear that the RPKI system is must be used
    with proper attention to the operational configuration details to avoid
    creating more risks than it solves)

    Neither of your two possibilities noted are comparable, as RPKI
    has real benefits but can pose serious operational risks if not done 
    with sufficient care.  Inattentive parties can easily claim that they 
    were impacted as a result of RPKI system issue and untangling the 
    reality when such claims occur is going to be highly problematic.  
    The advantage of a clearly accepted relying party agreement is that
    it makes plain that gaining the benefits of using RPKI resource 
    certification requires specific attention during deployment to avoid 
    creating new dependencies or failure modes and that done correctly
    should result in no operational dependency on the RPKI system - in 
    other words, RPKI provides additional information for better routing
    decisions when available but breakage should not happen otherwise.

    However, from the recent discussion, it is apparent that this explicit
    acknowledgement is seen as a hinderance to RPKI deployment.  
    As I indicated earlier,  we?re now working on changes to provide 
    ready access to ARIN?s TAL (without a click-accept RPA) and 
    switching over to an implicit service agreement instead.  Doing so 
    is a non-trivial activity, with both legal and risk analysis required 
    so that we can bring an informed proposal to the ARIN Board for 
    consideration.  I?ll keep the community informed on any progress
    or developments in this area.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



    



From matthew at matthew.at  Sun Dec  7 19:13:13 2014
From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 10:13:13 +1000
Subject: [arin-ppml] RPKI Relying Agreement
In-Reply-To: <5AA827A8-E7FA-47EA-8456-0B876E1F65F7@arin.net>
References: <54807E57.9020808@gmail.com>
	<1417708317551.46121@microsoft.com>	<59DC8423-9E03-49E5-8295-E7771EC9D290@corp.arin.net>	<CAP-guGWVj7=f_WSfoGUrZ83J8yRf0oJjAczsfk=SOhmXZaYKtQ@mail.gmail.com>	<D55D4A81-F4E7-4844-A69D-CE70ED4E5A95@arin.net>	<CAP-guGX_6XwmQ4nagzAYicJbLPs3p-COMv83V6aFOsufvj-QYg@mail.gmail.com>	<5EB89A5F-B303-40F1-8E9A-6E1FD890F950@arin.net>	<CAP-guGVJvs2=G_XFCRje8dERsUQ4-kWd+Fcw8CvBQpkk5qKRcw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5AA827A8-E7FA-47EA-8456-0B876E1F65F7@arin.net>
Message-ID: <5484ED19.50100@matthew.at>

So what's the legal risk of *not* deploying RPKI due to FUD, and to 
whom? We've certainly seen real operational disruption as a result.

Matthew Kaufman




From narten at us.ibm.com  Fri Dec 12 00:53:03 2014
From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten)
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 00:53:03 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net
Message-ID: <201412120553.sBC5r3f2018292@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>

Total of 5 messages in the last 7 days.
 
script run at: Fri Dec 12 00:53:03 EST 2014
 
    Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
 20.00% |    1 | 30.17% |    15286 | athompso at athompso.net
 20.00% |    1 | 27.36% |    13862 | bill at herrin.us
 20.00% |    1 | 18.41% |     9327 | jcurran at arin.net
 20.00% |    1 | 13.89% |     7035 | narten at us.ibm.com
 20.00% |    1 | 10.17% |     5152 | matthew at matthew.at
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
100.00% |    5 |100.00% |    50662 | Total



From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Sun Dec 14 19:47:58 2014
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 16:47:58 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] spam originating from IANA special-use blocks.
Message-ID: <CA81F043-19F1-455F-86E1-7359A8782838@netconsonance.com>

I am starting to see widespread spam from IANA special-use blocks. Is it necessary for use to change policy for these blocks to be delegated appropriately with specific contact information, or is this something that ARIN can do on its own without a policy change?

The block in question is the 6to4 block:
	2002::/16  NetName: IANA-V6-6TO4

-- 
Jo Rhett
+1 (415) 999-1798
Skype: jorhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.



From ppml at rs.seastrom.com  Sun Dec 14 19:56:47 2014
From: ppml at rs.seastrom.com (Rob Seastrom)
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 19:56:47 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] spam originating from IANA special-use blocks.
In-Reply-To: <CA81F043-19F1-455F-86E1-7359A8782838@netconsonance.com> (Jo
	Rhett's message of "Sun, 14 Dec 2014 16:47:58 -0800")
References: <CA81F043-19F1-455F-86E1-7359A8782838@netconsonance.com>
Message-ID: <86iohdivcg.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>


Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> writes:

> I am starting to see widespread spam from IANA special-use
> blocks. Is it necessary for use to change policy for these blocks to
> be delegated appropriately with specific contact information, or is
> this something that ARIN can do on its own without a policy change?

It is already documented; you can look up the specific IPv4 associated
with the 6to4 IPv6 address you got the spam from.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6to4#Address_block_allocation

> The block in question is the 6to4 block:
> 	2002::/16  NetName: IANA-V6-6TO4

If you blocked port 25 from that entire /16 (but allowed 587 and maybe
465 if you support that), I'll wager in practical terms you'd never
see a complaint related to legitimate mail.

-r



From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Mon Dec 15 00:06:51 2014
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 21:06:51 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] spam originating from IANA special-use blocks.
In-Reply-To: <86iohdivcg.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>
References: <CA81F043-19F1-455F-86E1-7359A8782838@netconsonance.com>
	<86iohdivcg.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>
Message-ID: <CACD4CA0-2690-4AD9-B97E-1C471117E191@netconsonance.com>

On Dec 14, 2014, at 4:56 PM, Rob Seastrom <ppml at rs.seastrom.com> wrote:
> Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> writes:
> 
>> I am starting to see widespread spam from IANA special-use
>> blocks. Is it necessary for use to change policy for these blocks to
>> be delegated appropriately with specific contact information, or is
>> this something that ARIN can do on its own without a policy change?
> 
> It is already documented; you can look up the specific IPv4 associated
> with the 6to4 IPv6 address you got the spam from.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6to4#Address_block_allocation

I think that this block should be commented as such for clarity when someone does a whois lookup.

-- 
Jo Rhett
+1 (415) 999-1798
Skype: jorhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.



From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Mon Dec 15 00:17:15 2014
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 21:17:15 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016598325E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <91f996151ef44b03b2179e253c0af1db@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu><544733
	1D.9040009@ipinc.net><CAMDXq5MSG6jEdMWSyAfE340_+gx=WmQUSuxu1XvJuV19RzTdGQ@m
	ail.gmail.com><4cbf6e7c109641259f86835fc5435cce@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<544EC27A.5040901@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016598325E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <99F6C7BF-E856-45D1-8D65-3874824DE0D8@netconsonance.com>

On Oct 27, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
> If in the spirit of trying to prevent fraud non-fraudulent requests get rejected, then Arin's mission stops being fulfilled.  I think it is important to make sure the mission is respected first and stopping fraud second or third or fifth or whatever.  We could stop all fraud by stopping all allocations but of course that makes no sense.  I would also point out that even when fraud happens Arin's Mission is still being fulfilled.

I completely disagree. There are dozens if not hundreds of people with non-fraudulent requests who get denied for insufficient justification. That is ARIN doing their job successfully in my mind. If widespread fraud occurs and ARIN does not take action, then I feel strongly that ARIN would not be doing their job.

> Of course maybe if the needs tests were loosened fraud would be significantly reduced as there would be no need to submit fraudulent requests.

Do you mean that if it were permissible to walk away with someone else?s belongings, then theft would no longer occur? Your statement is true without making any sense at all.

> I'm sure an org willing to submit a fraudulent request would tell you that they do have a need but they may not happen to meet the current arbitrary (and they are arbitrary) policy.  

I disagree completely. ARIN?s role is to satisfy needs-based requests. Exercising judgement of whether a need is realistic is doing their job.

The only thing arbitrary here is your desire for there to be no rules at all. Deeply amusing, but not helpful for realistic policy.

-- 
Jo Rhett
+1 (415) 999-1798
Skype: jorhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.



From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Mon Dec 15 01:17:14 2014
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 06:17:14 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
In-Reply-To: <99F6C7BF-E856-45D1-8D65-3874824DE0D8@netconsonance.com>
References: <91f996151ef44b03b2179e253c0af1db@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu><544733
	1D.9040009@ipinc.net><CAMDXq5MSG6jEdMWSyAfE340_+gx=WmQUSuxu1XvJuV19RzTdGQ@
	m
	ail.gmail.com><4cbf6e7c109641259f86835fc5435cce@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<544EC27A.5040901@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016598325E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<99F6C7BF-E856-45D1-8D65-3874824DE0D8@netconsonance.com>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A5102BE@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

Though it has been a few months since I made those comments, I appreciate your feedback.  Your description of "walk away with someone else?s belongings" seems to indicate that somehow the use of the Internet and the IP addresses that make the use of the Internet possible, is owned by ARIN or this Community or maybe ARIN and this Community.  

I find that line of thinking about as far as one can get from the spirit of Jon Postel and the way he went about advancing the Internet.  When I read the original Mission Statement for ARIN or even the current one, I don't see that "needs" are more important than the actual mission of advancement and allocation.  Good stewardship should be practiced but NOT to the detriment of the mission of advancement and allocation.  

In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?  I never met Jon Postel but from what I've heard about him, I suspect he would frown on some of the current policies regarding needs.  My comments below and others I have made are intended to try to bring some balance into the discussion and my hope is that some day in the near future that will happen.  I certainly don't desire there be no rules at all but the very loose rules followed by Jon Postel worked pretty well advancing the Internet.  I think we could loosen the current policies like has been done in other regions and it would have a positive outcome.  My two cents.

Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA? 30338
www.eclipse-networks.com
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office

? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
             ??????? Conquering Complex Networks?
             
-----Original Message-----
From: Jo Rhett [mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 12:17 AM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

On Oct 27, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
> If in the spirit of trying to prevent fraud non-fraudulent requests get rejected, then Arin's mission stops being fulfilled.  I think it is important to make sure the mission is respected first and stopping fraud second or third or fifth or whatever.  We could stop all fraud by stopping all allocations but of course that makes no sense.  I would also point out that even when fraud happens Arin's Mission is still being fulfilled.

I completely disagree. There are dozens if not hundreds of people with non-fraudulent requests who get denied for insufficient justification. That is ARIN doing their job successfully in my mind. If widespread fraud occurs and ARIN does not take action, then I feel strongly that ARIN would not be doing their job.

> Of course maybe if the needs tests were loosened fraud would be significantly reduced as there would be no need to submit fraudulent requests.

Do you mean that if it were permissible to walk away with someone else?s belongings, then theft would no longer occur? Your statement is true without making any sense at all.

> I'm sure an org willing to submit a fraudulent request would tell you that they do have a need but they may not happen to meet the current arbitrary (and they are arbitrary) policy.  

I disagree completely. ARIN?s role is to satisfy needs-based requests. Exercising judgement of whether a need is realistic is doing their job.

The only thing arbitrary here is your desire for there to be no rules at all. Deeply amusing, but not helpful for realistic policy.

-- 
Jo Rhett
+1 (415) 999-1798
Skype: jorhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.


From billdarte at gmail.com  Mon Dec 15 06:09:34 2014
From: billdarte at gmail.com (Bill Darte)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 05:09:34 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A5102BE@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <91f996151ef44b03b2179e253c0af1db@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<4cbf6e7c109641259f86835fc5435cce@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<544EC27A.5040901@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016598325E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<99F6C7BF-E856-45D1-8D65-3874824DE0D8@netconsonance.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A5102BE@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <CAMApp34neNsR5VzFD9evz=mdLJoQO-LRPK9rR=trtqYOx=QdgA@mail.gmail.com>

Steven Ryerse said:
In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based
policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of
advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need,
why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy)
now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?

The community through ARIN is ensuring that the distribution of v4 IP
addresses are according to its policies which have been and should continue
to be needs-based..IMO.  They are not 'caught up' in the sense that they
cannot proceed...ndeed, they are doing the precise business that policy and
its mission calls for.  That some orgs that cannot meet the needs hurdle
are denied...does not mean that others who truly have a need are not
serviced.  Those with clear need advance the Internet and do so
demonstrably...whereas those without a demonstrable need MAY advance the
Internet as well, but its a greater risk to the community and one which the
community has chosen to forgo.

Bill Darte

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Steven Ryerse <
SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>
> Though it has been a few months since I made those comments, I appreciate
> your feedback.  Your description of "walk away with someone else?s
> belongings" seems to indicate that somehow the use of the Internet and the
> IP addresses that make the use of the Internet possible, is owned by ARIN
> or this Community or maybe ARIN and this Community.
>
> I find that line of thinking about as far as one can get from the spirit
> of Jon Postel and the way he went about advancing the Internet.  When I
> read the original Mission Statement for ARIN or even the current one, I
> don't see that "needs" are more important than the actual mission of
> advancement and allocation.  Good stewardship should be practiced but NOT
> to the detriment of the mission of advancement and allocation.
>
> In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based
> policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of
> advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need,
> why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy)
> now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?
> I never met Jon Postel but from what I've heard about him, I suspect he
> would frown on some of the current policies regarding needs.  My comments
> below and others I have made are intended to try to bring some balance into
> the discussion and my hope is that some day in the near future that will
> happen.  I certainly don't desire there be no rules at all but the very
> loose rules followed by Jon Postel worked pretty well advancing the
> Internet.  I think we could loosen the current policies like has been done
> in other regions and it would have a positive outcome.  My two cents.
>
> Steven Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> www.eclipse-networks.com
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099- Office
>
> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>                      Conquering Complex Networks?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jo Rhett [mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 12:17 AM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>
> On Oct 27, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>
> wrote:
> > If in the spirit of trying to prevent fraud non-fraudulent requests get
> rejected, then Arin's mission stops being fulfilled.  I think it is
> important to make sure the mission is respected first and stopping fraud
> second or third or fifth or whatever.  We could stop all fraud by stopping
> all allocations but of course that makes no sense.  I would also point out
> that even when fraud happens Arin's Mission is still being fulfilled.
>
> I completely disagree. There are dozens if not hundreds of people with
> non-fraudulent requests who get denied for insufficient justification. That
> is ARIN doing their job successfully in my mind. If widespread fraud occurs
> and ARIN does not take action, then I feel strongly that ARIN would not be
> doing their job.
>
> > Of course maybe if the needs tests were loosened fraud would be
> significantly reduced as there would be no need to submit fraudulent
> requests.
>
> Do you mean that if it were permissible to walk away with someone else?s
> belongings, then theft would no longer occur? Your statement is true
> without making any sense at all.
>
> > I'm sure an org willing to submit a fraudulent request would tell you
> that they do have a need but they may not happen to meet the current
> arbitrary (and they are arbitrary) policy.
>
> I disagree completely. ARIN?s role is to satisfy needs-based requests.
> Exercising judgement of whether a need is realistic is doing their job.
>
> The only thing arbitrary here is your desire for there to be no rules at
> all. Deeply amusing, but not helpful for realistic policy.
>
> --
> Jo Rhett
> +1 (415) 999-1798
> Skype: jorhett
> Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet
> projects.
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage 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/20141215/1d25bb5e/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at arin.net  Mon Dec 15 07:20:29 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 12:20:29 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A5102BE@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <91f996151ef44b03b2179e253c0af1db@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<544733 1D.9040009@ipinc.net>
	<CAMDXq5MSG6jEdMWSyAfE340_+gx=WmQUSuxu1XvJuV19RzTdGQ@ m ail.gmail.com>
	<4cbf6e7c109641259f86835fc5435cce@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<544EC27A.5040901@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016598325E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<99F6C7BF-E856-45D1-8D65-3874824DE0D8@netconsonance.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A5102BE@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <DEB3C120-A8FF-4D7A-919F-B8D23B364BFB@corp.arin.net>

On Dec 15, 2014, at 1:17 AM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
> ...
> I find that line of thinking about as far as one can get from the spirit of Jon Postel and the way he went about advancing the Internet.  When I read the original Mission Statement for ARIN or even the current one, I don't see that "needs" are more important than the actual mission of advancement and allocation.  Good stewardship should be practiced but NOT to the detriment of the mission of advancement and allocation.  

Steven - 

Note that Jon Postal was instrumental to ARIN's founding and served 
an ex-officio Trustee at its inception.  The policies that were in 
effect at the time are stated in RFC 2050 (which Jon was one of the 
authors) and includes the following text regarding goals - 

"
   Internet address space is distributed according to the following
   three goals:

   1) Conservation: Fair distribution of globally unique Internet address
   space according to the operational needs of the end-users and Internet
   Service Providers operating networks using this address space.
   Prevention of stockpiling in order to maximize the lifetime of the
   Internet address space.
    ...
   3) Registration: Provision of a public registry documenting address
   space allocation and assignment.  This is necessary to ensure
   uniqueness and to provide information for Internet trouble shooting
   at all levels.
   ..
   All the above goals may sometimes be in conflict with the interests of
   individual end-users or Internet service providers.  Careful analysis
   and judgement is necessary in each individual case to find an
   appropriate compromise.
"

This supports your view that the goal of conservation is not more 
important than provision of a public registry - the goals must be 
balanced with one another.  

These same principles live on in ARIN's policy development process,
<https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html>, which states:

"Policies for Internet number resource management must be evaluated for soundness against three overarching technical requirements: conservation, aggregation, and registration. ... Policies must achieve a technically sound balance of these requirements, and support for these technical requirements must be documented in the assessment of the policy change."

> In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?  I never met Jon Postel but from what I've heard about him, I suspect he would frown on some of the current policies regarding needs.

Whether he would frown is unknowable, but it's unlikely that Jon would
be surprised that we were allocating accordingly to operational need.  
(He'd probably be more surprised that we had market-based transfers going 
on, given that RFC 2050 directs reclamation for any unneeded address 
space...)

> My comments below and others I have made are intended to try to bring some balance into the discussion and my hope is that some day in the near future that will happen.  I certainly don't desire there be no rules at all but the very loose rules followed by Jon Postel worked pretty well advancing the Internet. 

As noted above, the guidelines for address management have evolved over 
time, and even before ARIN have included distribution based on operational 
need; i.e. your reference to Jon's "loose rules" is probably not correct
except in the very earliest days of the Internet.  It's probably far more 
important that the policies used in the management of IP address space are 
developed by the community per their current requirements and expectations.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN








From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Mon Dec 15 11:15:37 2014
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 16:15:37 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
In-Reply-To: <CAMApp34neNsR5VzFD9evz=mdLJoQO-LRPK9rR=trtqYOx=QdgA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <91f996151ef44b03b2179e253c0af1db@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu><4cbf6e
	7c109641259f86835fc5435cce@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu><544EC27A.5040901@ipinc.n
	et><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016598325E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.co
	m><99F6C7BF-E856-45D1-8D65-3874824DE0D8@netconsonance.com><5B9E90747FA2974D
	91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A5102BE@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CAMApp34neNsR5VzFD9evz=mdLJoQO-LRPK9rR=trtqYOx=QdgA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A51DE0E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

By that definition, I wonder if Jobs and Wozniak needed IP resources today for their garage - could they get them?  Whether you like what they did or not they certainly have advanced the Internet.  And if John and Sue are working in their garage today and need a /24 or a /22 from ARIN to further the Internet, can they get them?  With today?s policies ? probably not as they might not have a business plan yet, or signed contract with contractors, or gotten their funding - or any other measure of need that is currently indoctrinated in policy.  What a shame!


Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
www.eclipse-networks.com
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office

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

From: Bill Darte [mailto:billdarte at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 6:10 AM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Jo Rhett; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

Steven Ryerse said:
In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?

The community through ARIN is ensuring that the distribution of v4 IP addresses are according to its policies which have been and should continue to be needs-based..IMO.  They are not 'caught up' in the sense that they cannot proceed...ndeed, they are doing the precise business that policy and its mission calls for.  That some orgs that cannot meet the needs hurdle are denied...does not mean that others who truly have a need are not serviced.  Those with clear need advance the Internet and do so demonstrably...whereas those without a demonstrable need MAY advance the Internet as well, but its a greater risk to the community and one which the community has chosen to forgo.

Bill Darte

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
Though it has been a few months since I made those comments, I appreciate your feedback.  Your description of "walk away with someone else?s belongings" seems to indicate that somehow the use of the Internet and the IP addresses that make the use of the Internet possible, is owned by ARIN or this Community or maybe ARIN and this Community.

I find that line of thinking about as far as one can get from the spirit of Jon Postel and the way he went about advancing the Internet.  When I read the original Mission Statement for ARIN or even the current one, I don't see that "needs" are more important than the actual mission of advancement and allocation.  Good stewardship should be practiced but NOT to the detriment of the mission of advancement and allocation.

In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?  I never met Jon Postel but from what I've heard about him, I suspect he would frown on some of the current policies regarding needs.  My comments below and others I have made are intended to try to bring some balance into the discussion and my hope is that some day in the near future that will happen.  I certainly don't desire there be no rules at all but the very loose rules followed by Jon Postel worked pretty well advancing the Internet.  I think we could loosen the current policies like has been done in other regions and it would have a positive outcome.  My two cents.

Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
www.eclipse-networks.com<http://www.eclipse-networks.com>
770.656.1460<tel:770.656.1460> - Cell
770.399.9099<tel:770.399.9099>- Office

? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
                     Conquering Complex Networks?

-----Original Message-----
From: Jo Rhett [mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com<mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com>]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 12:17 AM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

On Oct 27, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
> If in the spirit of trying to prevent fraud non-fraudulent requests get rejected, then Arin's mission stops being fulfilled.  I think it is important to make sure the mission is respected first and stopping fraud second or third or fifth or whatever.  We could stop all fraud by stopping all allocations but of course that makes no sense.  I would also point out that even when fraud happens Arin's Mission is still being fulfilled.

I completely disagree. There are dozens if not hundreds of people with non-fraudulent requests who get denied for insufficient justification. That is ARIN doing their job successfully in my mind. If widespread fraud occurs and ARIN does not take action, then I feel strongly that ARIN would not be doing their job.

> Of course maybe if the needs tests were loosened fraud would be significantly reduced as there would be no need to submit fraudulent requests.

Do you mean that if it were permissible to walk away with someone else?s belongings, then theft would no longer occur? Your statement is true without making any sense at all.

> I'm sure an org willing to submit a fraudulent request would tell you that they do have a need but they may not happen to meet the current arbitrary (and they are arbitrary) policy.

I disagree completely. ARIN?s role is to satisfy needs-based requests. Exercising judgement of whether a need is realistic is doing their job.

The only thing arbitrary here is your desire for there to be no rules at all. Deeply amusing, but not helpful for realistic policy.

--
Jo Rhett
+1 (415) 999-1798<tel:%2B1%20%28415%29%20999-1798>
Skype: jorhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.

_______________________________________________
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/20141215/a40346fb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1468 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141215/a40346fb/attachment.jpg>

From billdarte at gmail.com  Mon Dec 15 12:30:05 2014
From: billdarte at gmail.com (Bill Darte)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 11:30:05 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A51DE0E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <91f996151ef44b03b2179e253c0af1db@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<99F6C7BF-E856-45D1-8D65-3874824DE0D8@netconsonance.com>
	<CAMApp34neNsR5VzFD9evz=mdLJoQO-LRPK9rR=trtqYOx=QdgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A51DE0E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <CAMApp35xq43JCjmiqMOsZh398vyHdEMuqSkhtLGzuH+R7t_oHQ@mail.gmail.com>

Steve said:
By that definition, I wonder if Jobs and Wozniak needed IP resources today
for their garage - could they get them?  Whether you like what they did or
not they certainly have advanced the Internet.  And if John and Sue are
working in their garage today and need a /24 or a /22 from ARIN to further
the Internet, can they get them?  With today?s policies ? probably not as
they might not have a business plan yet, or signed contract with
contractors, or gotten their funding - or any other measure of need that is
currently indoctrinated in policy.  What a shame!

You paint a bleak and I believe obfuscating picture with your example...IF
they NEEDED as you say a /22 or /24 they can justify it.  Without a
business plan or signed contracts, how can one assess the stated need
against the risk of assigning addresses to them when others more prepared
are able to justify their need more completely.  Of course your hindsight
example makes us all sympathetic for those wonderful entrepreneurs...but
how do we, in real time, estimate John and Sue's entrepreneurial outcomes
in with no information in order to give them the benefit of the doubt?  No.
Let's keep giving out addresses to those with a business plan, contracts
and demonstrable need.  And, of course even then...some brilliant
entrepreneur may come one day and there will be NO v4 addresses for them or
anyone else....that would be a shame too....That would be especially
shameful if the community were out because of a foolish practice of giving
out addresses to those who don't really need them.

And besides...there is v6...now and in the future for the true
entrepreneur...surely they will be able to figure out a way to use them.



On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Steven Ryerse <
SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>
>  By that definition, I wonder if Jobs and Wozniak needed IP resources
> today for their garage - could they get them?  Whether you like what they
> did or not they certainly have advanced the Internet.  And if John and Sue
> are working in their garage today and need a /24 or a /22 from ARIN to
> further the Internet, can they get them?  With today?s policies ? probably
> not as they might not have a business plan yet, or signed contract with
> contractors, or gotten their funding - or any other measure of need that is
> currently indoctrinated in policy.  What a shame!
>
>
>
>
>
> *Steven Ryerse*
>
> *President*
>
> *100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338*
>
> *www.eclipse-networks.com <http://www.eclipse-networks.com>*
>
> *770.656.1460 <770.656.1460> - Cell*
>
> *770.399.9099 <770.399.9099>- Office*
>
>
>
> [image: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse
> Networks, Inc.
>
>         Conquering Complex Networks?
>
>
>
> *From:* Bill Darte [mailto:billdarte at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, December 15, 2014 6:10 AM
> *To:* Steven Ryerse
> *Cc:* Jo Rhett; arin-ppml at arin.net
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>
>
>
> Steven Ryerse said:
>
> In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based
> policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of
> advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need,
> why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy)
> now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?
>
>
>
> The community through ARIN is ensuring that the distribution of v4 IP
> addresses are according to its policies which have been and should continue
> to be needs-based..IMO.  They are not 'caught up' in the sense that they
> cannot proceed...ndeed, they are doing the precise business that policy and
> its mission calls for.  That some orgs that cannot meet the needs hurdle
> are denied...does not mean that others who truly have a need are not
> serviced.  Those with clear need advance the Internet and do so
> demonstrably...whereas those without a demonstrable need MAY advance the
> Internet as well, but its a greater risk to the community and one which the
> community has chosen to forgo.
>
>
>
> Bill Darte
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Steven Ryerse <
> SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>
> Though it has been a few months since I made those comments, I appreciate
> your feedback.  Your description of "walk away with someone else?s
> belongings" seems to indicate that somehow the use of the Internet and the
> IP addresses that make the use of the Internet possible, is owned by ARIN
> or this Community or maybe ARIN and this Community.
>
> I find that line of thinking about as far as one can get from the spirit
> of Jon Postel and the way he went about advancing the Internet.  When I
> read the original Mission Statement for ARIN or even the current one, I
> don't see that "needs" are more important than the actual mission of
> advancement and allocation.  Good stewardship should be practiced but NOT
> to the detriment of the mission of advancement and allocation.
>
> In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based
> policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of
> advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need,
> why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy)
> now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?
> I never met Jon Postel but from what I've heard about him, I suspect he
> would frown on some of the current policies regarding needs.  My comments
> below and others I have made are intended to try to bring some balance into
> the discussion and my hope is that some day in the near future that will
> happen.  I certainly don't desire there be no rules at all but the very
> loose rules followed by Jon Postel worked pretty well advancing the
> Internet.  I think we could loosen the current policies like has been done
> in other regions and it would have a positive outcome.  My two cents.
>
> Steven Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> www.eclipse-networks.com
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099- Office
>
> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>                      Conquering Complex Networks?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jo Rhett [mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 12:17 AM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>
> On Oct 27, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>
> wrote:
> > If in the spirit of trying to prevent fraud non-fraudulent requests get
> rejected, then Arin's mission stops being fulfilled.  I think it is
> important to make sure the mission is respected first and stopping fraud
> second or third or fifth or whatever.  We could stop all fraud by stopping
> all allocations but of course that makes no sense.  I would also point out
> that even when fraud happens Arin's Mission is still being fulfilled.
>
> I completely disagree. There are dozens if not hundreds of people with
> non-fraudulent requests who get denied for insufficient justification. That
> is ARIN doing their job successfully in my mind. If widespread fraud occurs
> and ARIN does not take action, then I feel strongly that ARIN would not be
> doing their job.
>
> > Of course maybe if the needs tests were loosened fraud would be
> significantly reduced as there would be no need to submit fraudulent
> requests.
>
> Do you mean that if it were permissible to walk away with someone else?s
> belongings, then theft would no longer occur? Your statement is true
> without making any sense at all.
>
> > I'm sure an org willing to submit a fraudulent request would tell you
> that they do have a need but they may not happen to meet the current
> arbitrary (and they are arbitrary) policy.
>
> I disagree completely. ARIN?s role is to satisfy needs-based requests.
> Exercising judgement of whether a need is realistic is doing their job.
>
> The only thing arbitrary here is your desire for there to be no rules at
> all. Deeply amusing, but not helpful for realistic policy.
>
> --
> Jo Rhett
> +1 (415) 999-1798
> Skype: jorhett
> Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet
> projects.
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage 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/20141215/2fc88e9d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1468 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141215/2fc88e9d/attachment.jpg>

From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Mon Dec 15 13:05:47 2014
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 18:05:47 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
In-Reply-To: <CAMApp35xq43JCjmiqMOsZh398vyHdEMuqSkhtLGzuH+R7t_oHQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <91f996151ef44b03b2179e253c0af1db@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu><99F6C7
	BF-E856-45D1-8D65-3874824DE0D8@netconsonance.com><CAMApp34neNsR5VzFD9evz=md
	LJoQO-LRPK9rR=trtqYOx=QdgA@mail.gmail.com><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A51DE0E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CAMApp35xq43JCjmiqMOsZh398vyHdEMuqSkhtLGzuH+R7t_oHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A51F1A4@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

Obviously we can agree that we disagree about this, but the simple way to solve this problem would be to remove needs tests on the smallest allocation of at least a /24.

I would point out that keeping needs testing on the smallest size allocation is equivalent to making the decision that it is OK to not Advance (ARIN?s mission) the Internet at the small end as the smallest orgs have the toughest time meeting needs requirements.  If that is really the decision this community wants to make - then in my opinion - at least it should admit that is the decision it is making.

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

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

From: Bill Darte [mailto:billdarte at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 12:30 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Jo Rhett; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

Steve said:
By that definition, I wonder if Jobs and Wozniak needed IP resources today for their garage - could they get them?  Whether you like what they did or not they certainly have advanced the Internet.  And if John and Sue are working in their garage today and need a /24 or a /22 from ARIN to further the Internet, can they get them?  With today?s policies ? probably not as they might not have a business plan yet, or signed contract with contractors, or gotten their funding - or any other measure of need that is currently indoctrinated in policy.  What a shame!

You paint a bleak and I believe obfuscating picture with your example...IF they NEEDED as you say a /22 or /24 they can justify it.  Without a business plan or signed contracts, how can one assess the stated need against the risk of assigning addresses to them when others more prepared are able to justify their need more completely.  Of course your hindsight example makes us all sympathetic for those wonderful entrepreneurs...but how do we, in real time, estimate John and Sue's entrepreneurial outcomes in with no information in order to give them the benefit of the doubt?  No. Let's keep giving out addresses to those with a business plan, contracts and demonstrable need.  And, of course even then...some brilliant entrepreneur may come one day and there will be NO v4 addresses for them or anyone else....that would be a shame too....That would be especially shameful if the community were out because of a foolish practice of giving out addresses to those who don't really need them.

And besides...there is v6...now and in the future for the true entrepreneur...surely they will be able to figure out a way to use them.



On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
By that definition, I wonder if Jobs and Wozniak needed IP resources today for their garage - could they get them?  Whether you like what they did or not they certainly have advanced the Internet.  And if John and Sue are working in their garage today and need a /24 or a /22 from ARIN to further the Internet, can they get them?  With today?s policies ? probably not as they might not have a business plan yet, or signed contract with contractors, or gotten their funding - or any other measure of need that is currently indoctrinated in policy.  What a shame!


Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
www.eclipse-networks.com<http://www.eclipse-networks.com>
770.656.1460<tel:770.656.1460> - Cell
770.399.9099<tel:770.399.9099>- Office

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

From: Bill Darte [mailto:billdarte at gmail.com<mailto:billdarte at gmail.com>]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 6:10 AM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Jo Rhett; arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

Steven Ryerse said:
In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?

The community through ARIN is ensuring that the distribution of v4 IP addresses are according to its policies which have been and should continue to be needs-based..IMO.  They are not 'caught up' in the sense that they cannot proceed...ndeed, they are doing the precise business that policy and its mission calls for.  That some orgs that cannot meet the needs hurdle are denied...does not mean that others who truly have a need are not serviced.  Those with clear need advance the Internet and do so demonstrably...whereas those without a demonstrable need MAY advance the Internet as well, but its a greater risk to the community and one which the community has chosen to forgo.

Bill Darte

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
Though it has been a few months since I made those comments, I appreciate your feedback.  Your description of "walk away with someone else?s belongings" seems to indicate that somehow the use of the Internet and the IP addresses that make the use of the Internet possible, is owned by ARIN or this Community or maybe ARIN and this Community.

I find that line of thinking about as far as one can get from the spirit of Jon Postel and the way he went about advancing the Internet.  When I read the original Mission Statement for ARIN or even the current one, I don't see that "needs" are more important than the actual mission of advancement and allocation.  Good stewardship should be practiced but NOT to the detriment of the mission of advancement and allocation.

In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?  I never met Jon Postel but from what I've heard about him, I suspect he would frown on some of the current policies regarding needs.  My comments below and others I have made are intended to try to bring some balance into the discussion and my hope is that some day in the near future that will happen.  I certainly don't desire there be no rules at all but the very loose rules followed by Jon Postel worked pretty well advancing the Internet.  I think we could loosen the current policies like has been done in other regions and it would have a positive outcome.  My two cents.

Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
www.eclipse-networks.com<http://www.eclipse-networks.com>
770.656.1460<tel:770.656.1460> - Cell
770.399.9099<tel:770.399.9099>- Office

? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
                     Conquering Complex Networks?

-----Original Message-----
From: Jo Rhett [mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com<mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com>]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 12:17 AM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

On Oct 27, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
> If in the spirit of trying to prevent fraud non-fraudulent requests get rejected, then Arin's mission stops being fulfilled.  I think it is important to make sure the mission is respected first and stopping fraud second or third or fifth or whatever.  We could stop all fraud by stopping all allocations but of course that makes no sense.  I would also point out that even when fraud happens Arin's Mission is still being fulfilled.

I completely disagree. There are dozens if not hundreds of people with non-fraudulent requests who get denied for insufficient justification. That is ARIN doing their job successfully in my mind. If widespread fraud occurs and ARIN does not take action, then I feel strongly that ARIN would not be doing their job.

> Of course maybe if the needs tests were loosened fraud would be significantly reduced as there would be no need to submit fraudulent requests.

Do you mean that if it were permissible to walk away with someone else?s belongings, then theft would no longer occur? Your statement is true without making any sense at all.

> I'm sure an org willing to submit a fraudulent request would tell you that they do have a need but they may not happen to meet the current arbitrary (and they are arbitrary) policy.

I disagree completely. ARIN?s role is to satisfy needs-based requests. Exercising judgement of whether a need is realistic is doing their job.

The only thing arbitrary here is your desire for there to be no rules at all. Deeply amusing, but not helpful for realistic policy.

--
Jo Rhett
+1 (415) 999-1798<tel:%2B1%20%28415%29%20999-1798>
Skype: jorhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.

_______________________________________________
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/20141215/b03d72dd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1468 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141215/b03d72dd/attachment.jpg>

From kkargel at polartel.com  Mon Dec 15 13:12:20 2014
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 12:12:20 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml]  2014-1 Out of Region Use
Message-ID: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28015F4C1298@MAIL1.polartel.local>


The internet is a different place now and things change and evolve over time.  If a modern day entrepreneur needed IP space they would have little or no problem finding all the IPv6 space they need at little or no cost and with virtually no trouble.
When Jobs and Wozniak were starting up IPV4 was a different animal.
Kevin


From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 10:16 AM
To: Bill Darte
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

By that definition, I wonder if Jobs and Wozniak needed IP resources today for their garage - could they get them?  Whether you like what they did or not they certainly have advanced the Internet.  And if John and Sue are working in their garage today and need a /24 or a /22 from ARIN to further the Internet, can they get them?  With today?s policies ? probably not as they might not have a business plan yet, or signed contract with contractors, or gotten their funding - or any other measure of need that is currently indoctrinated in policy.  What a shame!


Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
www.eclipse-networks.com<http://www.eclipse-networks.com>
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office

[cid:image001.jpg at 01D01860.42AB1620]? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
        Conquering Complex Networks?

From: Bill Darte [mailto:billdarte at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 6:10 AM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Jo Rhett; arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

Steven Ryerse said:
In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?

The community through ARIN is ensuring that the distribution of v4 IP addresses are according to its policies which have been and should continue to be needs-based..IMO.  They are not 'caught up' in the sense that they cannot proceed...ndeed, they are doing the precise business that policy and its mission calls for.  That some orgs that cannot meet the needs hurdle are denied...does not mean that others who truly have a need are not serviced.  Those with clear need advance the Internet and do so demonstrably...whereas those without a demonstrable need MAY advance the Internet as well, but its a greater risk to the community and one which the community has chosen to forgo.

Bill Darte

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
Though it has been a few months since I made those comments, I appreciate your feedback.  Your description of "walk away with someone else?s belongings" seems to indicate that somehow the use of the Internet and the IP addresses that make the use of the Internet possible, is owned by ARIN or this Community or maybe ARIN and this Community.

I find that line of thinking about as far as one can get from the spirit of Jon Postel and the way he went about advancing the Internet.  When I read the original Mission Statement for ARIN or even the current one, I don't see that "needs" are more important than the actual mission of advancement and allocation.  Good stewardship should be practiced but NOT to the detriment of the mission of advancement and allocation.

In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?  I never met Jon Postel but from what I've heard about him, I suspect he would frown on some of the current policies regarding needs.  My comments below and others I have made are intended to try to bring some balance into the discussion and my hope is that some day in the near future that will happen.  I certainly don't desire there be no rules at all but the very loose rules followed by Jon Postel worked pretty well advancing the Internet.  I think we could loosen the current policies like has been done in other regions and it would have a positive outcome.  My two cents.

Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
www.eclipse-networks.com<http://www.eclipse-networks.com>
770.656.1460<tel:770.656.1460> - Cell
770.399.9099<tel:770.399.9099>- Office

? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
                     Conquering Complex Networks?

-----Original Message-----
From: Jo Rhett [mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com<mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com>]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 12:17 AM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

On Oct 27, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
> If in the spirit of trying to prevent fraud non-fraudulent requests get rejected, then Arin's mission stops being fulfilled.  I think it is important to make sure the mission is respected first and stopping fraud second or third or fifth or whatever.  We could stop all fraud by stopping all allocations but of course that makes no sense.  I would also point out that even when fraud happens Arin's Mission is still being fulfilled.

I completely disagree. There are dozens if not hundreds of people with non-fraudulent requests who get denied for insufficient justification. That is ARIN doing their job successfully in my mind. If widespread fraud occurs and ARIN does not take action, then I feel strongly that ARIN would not be doing their job.

> Of course maybe if the needs tests were loosened fraud would be significantly reduced as there would be no need to submit fraudulent requests.

Do you mean that if it were permissible to walk away with someone else?s belongings, then theft would no longer occur? Your statement is true without making any sense at all.

> I'm sure an org willing to submit a fraudulent request would tell you that they do have a need but they may not happen to meet the current arbitrary (and they are arbitrary) policy.

I disagree completely. ARIN?s role is to satisfy needs-based requests. Exercising judgement of whether a need is realistic is doing their job.

The only thing arbitrary here is your desire for there to be no rules at all. Deeply amusing, but not helpful for realistic policy.

--
Jo Rhett
+1 (415) 999-1798<tel:%2B1%20%28415%29%20999-1798>
Skype: jorhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.

_______________________________________________
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/20141215/90cb0ad8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1468 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141215/90cb0ad8/attachment.jpg>

From billdarte at gmail.com  Mon Dec 15 13:21:12 2014
From: billdarte at gmail.com (Bill Darte)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 12:21:12 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A51F1A4@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <91f996151ef44b03b2179e253c0af1db@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A51DE0E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CAMApp35xq43JCjmiqMOsZh398vyHdEMuqSkhtLGzuH+R7t_oHQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A51F1A4@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <CAMApp37vVRobUmjsPL13A8Bv=_kdyxPjM=q9UhfFvO7uh8N0KA@mail.gmail.com>

Steve said:  I would point out that keeping needs testing on the smallest
size allocation is equivalent to making the decision that it is OK to not
Advance (ARIN?s mission) the Internet at the small end as the smallest orgs
have the toughest time meeting needs requirements.  If that is really the
decision this community wants to make - then in my opinion - at least it
should admit that is the decision it is making.


We certainly DO disagree on this point too....Though I think justifications
for the smallest orgs MAY in fact be more difficult...others in that
segment will likely comment....but that doesn't me NO needs test to me, but
rather a different one...if the community so chose.  Of course if the
community chooses ANY change to the existing policy of ARIN, I'm 100% on
board.


bd



On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Steven Ryerse <
SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>
>  Obviously we can agree that we disagree about this, but the simple way
> to solve this problem would be to remove needs tests on the smallest
> allocation of at least a /24.
>
>
>
> I would point out that keeping needs testing on the smallest size
> allocation is equivalent to making the decision that it is OK to not
> Advance (ARIN?s mission) the Internet at the small end as the smallest orgs
> have the toughest time meeting needs requirements.  If that is really the
> decision this community wants to make - then in my opinion - at least it
> should admit that is the decision it is making.
>
>
>
> *Steven Ryerse*
>
> *President*
>
> *100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338*
>
> *770.656.1460 <770.656.1460> - Cell*
>
> *770.399.9099 <770.399.9099>- Office*
>
>
>
> [image: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse
> Networks, Inc.
>
>         Conquering Complex Networks?
>
>
>
> *From:* Bill Darte [mailto:billdarte at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, December 15, 2014 12:30 PM
> *To:* Steven Ryerse
> *Cc:* Jo Rhett; arin-ppml at arin.net
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>
>
>
> Steve said:
>
> By that definition, I wonder if Jobs and Wozniak needed IP resources today
> for their garage - could they get them?  Whether you like what they did or
> not they certainly have advanced the Internet.  And if John and Sue are
> working in their garage today and need a /24 or a /22 from ARIN to further
> the Internet, can they get them?  With today?s policies ? probably not as
> they might not have a business plan yet, or signed contract with
> contractors, or gotten their funding - or any other measure of need that is
> currently indoctrinated in policy.  What a shame!
>
>
>
> You paint a bleak and I believe obfuscating picture with your example...IF
> they NEEDED as you say a /22 or /24 they can justify it.  Without a
> business plan or signed contracts, how can one assess the stated need
> against the risk of assigning addresses to them when others more prepared
> are able to justify their need more completely.  Of course your hindsight
> example makes us all sympathetic for those wonderful entrepreneurs...but
> how do we, in real time, estimate John and Sue's entrepreneurial outcomes
> in with no information in order to give them the benefit of the doubt?  No.
> Let's keep giving out addresses to those with a business plan, contracts
> and demonstrable need.  And, of course even then...some brilliant
> entrepreneur may come one day and there will be NO v4 addresses for them or
> anyone else....that would be a shame too....That would be especially
> shameful if the community were out because of a foolish practice of giving
> out addresses to those who don't really need them.
>
>
>
> And besides...there is v6...now and in the future for the true
> entrepreneur...surely they will be able to figure out a way to use them.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Steven Ryerse <
> SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>
>  By that definition, I wonder if Jobs and Wozniak needed IP resources
> today for their garage - could they get them?  Whether you like what they
> did or not they certainly have advanced the Internet.  And if John and Sue
> are working in their garage today and need a /24 or a /22 from ARIN to
> further the Internet, can they get them?  With today?s policies ? probably
> not as they might not have a business plan yet, or signed contract with
> contractors, or gotten their funding - or any other measure of need that is
> currently indoctrinated in policy.  What a shame!
>
>
>
>
>
> *Steven Ryerse*
>
> *President*
>
> *100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338*
>
> *www.eclipse-networks.com <http://www.eclipse-networks.com>*
>
> *770.656.1460 <770.656.1460> - Cell*
>
> *770.399.9099 <770.399.9099>- Office*
>
>
>
> [image: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse
> Networks, Inc.
>
>         Conquering Complex Networks?
>
>
>
> *From:* Bill Darte [mailto:billdarte at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, December 15, 2014 6:10 AM
> *To:* Steven Ryerse
> *Cc:* Jo Rhett; arin-ppml at arin.net
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>
>
>
> Steven Ryerse said:
>
> In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based
> policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of
> advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need,
> why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy)
> now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?
>
>
>
> The community through ARIN is ensuring that the distribution of v4 IP
> addresses are according to its policies which have been and should continue
> to be needs-based..IMO.  They are not 'caught up' in the sense that they
> cannot proceed...ndeed, they are doing the precise business that policy and
> its mission calls for.  That some orgs that cannot meet the needs hurdle
> are denied...does not mean that others who truly have a need are not
> serviced.  Those with clear need advance the Internet and do so
> demonstrably...whereas those without a demonstrable need MAY advance the
> Internet as well, but its a greater risk to the community and one which the
> community has chosen to forgo.
>
>
>
> Bill Darte
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Steven Ryerse <
> SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>
> Though it has been a few months since I made those comments, I appreciate
> your feedback.  Your description of "walk away with someone else?s
> belongings" seems to indicate that somehow the use of the Internet and the
> IP addresses that make the use of the Internet possible, is owned by ARIN
> or this Community or maybe ARIN and this Community.
>
> I find that line of thinking about as far as one can get from the spirit
> of Jon Postel and the way he went about advancing the Internet.  When I
> read the original Mission Statement for ARIN or even the current one, I
> don't see that "needs" are more important than the actual mission of
> advancement and allocation.  Good stewardship should be practiced but NOT
> to the detriment of the mission of advancement and allocation.
>
> In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based
> policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of
> advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need,
> why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy)
> now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?
> I never met Jon Postel but from what I've heard about him, I suspect he
> would frown on some of the current policies regarding needs.  My comments
> below and others I have made are intended to try to bring some balance into
> the discussion and my hope is that some day in the near future that will
> happen.  I certainly don't desire there be no rules at all but the very
> loose rules followed by Jon Postel worked pretty well advancing the
> Internet.  I think we could loosen the current policies like has been done
> in other regions and it would have a positive outcome.  My two cents.
>
> Steven Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> www.eclipse-networks.com
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099- Office
>
> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>                      Conquering Complex Networks?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jo Rhett [mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 12:17 AM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>
> On Oct 27, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>
> wrote:
> > If in the spirit of trying to prevent fraud non-fraudulent requests get
> rejected, then Arin's mission stops being fulfilled.  I think it is
> important to make sure the mission is respected first and stopping fraud
> second or third or fifth or whatever.  We could stop all fraud by stopping
> all allocations but of course that makes no sense.  I would also point out
> that even when fraud happens Arin's Mission is still being fulfilled.
>
> I completely disagree. There are dozens if not hundreds of people with
> non-fraudulent requests who get denied for insufficient justification. That
> is ARIN doing their job successfully in my mind. If widespread fraud occurs
> and ARIN does not take action, then I feel strongly that ARIN would not be
> doing their job.
>
> > Of course maybe if the needs tests were loosened fraud would be
> significantly reduced as there would be no need to submit fraudulent
> requests.
>
> Do you mean that if it were permissible to walk away with someone else?s
> belongings, then theft would no longer occur? Your statement is true
> without making any sense at all.
>
> > I'm sure an org willing to submit a fraudulent request would tell you
> that they do have a need but they may not happen to meet the current
> arbitrary (and they are arbitrary) policy.
>
> I disagree completely. ARIN?s role is to satisfy needs-based requests.
> Exercising judgement of whether a need is realistic is doing their job.
>
> The only thing arbitrary here is your desire for there to be no rules at
> all. Deeply amusing, but not helpful for realistic policy.
>
> --
> Jo Rhett
> +1 (415) 999-1798
> Skype: jorhett
> Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet
> projects.
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage 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/20141215/3bf0025f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1468 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141215/3bf0025f/attachment.jpg>

From mueller at syr.edu  Mon Dec 15 13:27:56 2014
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 18:27:56 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
In-Reply-To: <99F6C7BF-E856-45D1-8D65-3874824DE0D8@netconsonance.com>
References: <91f996151ef44b03b2179e253c0af1db@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu><544733
	1D.9040009@ipinc.net><CAMDXq5MSG6jEdMWSyAfE340_+gx=WmQUSuxu1XvJuV19RzTdGQ@m
	ail.gmail.com><4cbf6e7c109641259f86835fc5435cce@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<544EC27A.5040901@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016598325E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<99F6C7BF-E856-45D1-8D65-3874824DE0D8@netconsonance.com>
Message-ID: <78acab535c59476ab7bf974a132d69d3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>

Jo and Steven:
As the shepherd for 2014-1 I am having trouble understanding the relevance of arguments about needs assessment to the Out of Region Use proposal. That proposal does not change needs assessment policies. 

Here is a link to the latest draft of 2014-1. Do you have any comments specifically about 2014-1? 

--MM


> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-
> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jo Rhett
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 12:17 AM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
> 
> On Oct 27, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-
> networks.com> wrote:
> > If in the spirit of trying to prevent fraud non-fraudulent requests get
> rejected, then Arin's mission stops being fulfilled.  I think it is important
> to make sure the mission is respected first and stopping fraud second
> or third or fifth or whatever.  We could stop all fraud by stopping all
> allocations but of course that makes no sense.  I would also point out
> that even when fraud happens Arin's Mission is still being fulfilled.
> 
> I completely disagree. There are dozens if not hundreds of people with
> non-fraudulent requests who get denied for insufficient justification.
> That is ARIN doing their job successfully in my mind. If widespread
> fraud occurs and ARIN does not take action, then I feel strongly that
> ARIN would not be doing their job.
> 
> > Of course maybe if the needs tests were loosened fraud would be
> significantly reduced as there would be no need to submit fraudulent
> requests.
> 
> Do you mean that if it were permissible to walk away with someone
> else's belongings, then theft would no longer occur? Your statement is
> true without making any sense at all.
> 
> > I'm sure an org willing to submit a fraudulent request would tell you
> that they do have a need but they may not happen to meet the
> current arbitrary (and they are arbitrary) policy.
> 
> I disagree completely. ARIN's role is to satisfy needs-based requests.
> Exercising judgement of whether a need is realistic is doing their job.
> 
> The only thing arbitrary here is your desire for there to be no rules at
> all. Deeply amusing, but not helpful for realistic policy.
> 
> --
> Jo Rhett
> +1 (415) 999-1798
> Skype: jorhett
> Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and
> internet projects.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage 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  Mon Dec 15 13:28:44 2014
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 18:28:44 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
In-Reply-To: <78acab535c59476ab7bf974a132d69d3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <91f996151ef44b03b2179e253c0af1db@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu><544733
	1D.9040009@ipinc.net><CAMDXq5MSG6jEdMWSyAfE340_+gx=WmQUSuxu1XvJuV19RzTdGQ@m
	ail.gmail.com><4cbf6e7c109641259f86835fc5435cce@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<544EC27A.5040901@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016598325E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<99F6C7BF-E856-45D1-8D65-3874824DE0D8@netconsonance.com>
	<78acab535c59476ab7bf974a132d69d3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <511bc475bd6b46be84dbf7ed15f0b564@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>

Oops, seems I forgot to add the link
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_1.html 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 1:28 PM
> To: 'Jo Rhett'; 'Steven Ryerse'
> Cc: 'arin-ppml at arin.net'
> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
> 
> Jo and Steven:
> As the shepherd for 2014-1 I am having trouble understanding the
> relevance of arguments about needs assessment to the Out of Region
> Use proposal. That proposal does not change needs assessment
> policies.
> 
> Here is a link to the latest draft of 2014-1. Do you have any comments
> specifically about 2014-1?
> 
> --MM
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-
> bounces at arin.net]
> > On Behalf Of Jo Rhett
> > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 12:17 AM
> > To: Steven Ryerse
> > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
> >
> > On Oct 27, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-
> > networks.com> wrote:
> > > If in the spirit of trying to prevent fraud non-fraudulent requests
> > > get
> > rejected, then Arin's mission stops being fulfilled.  I think it is
> > important to make sure the mission is respected first and stopping
> > fraud second or third or fifth or whatever.  We could stop all fraud
> > by stopping all allocations but of course that makes no sense.  I
> > would also point out that even when fraud happens Arin's Mission is
> still being fulfilled.
> >
> > I completely disagree. There are dozens if not hundreds of people
> with
> > non-fraudulent requests who get denied for insufficient justification.
> > That is ARIN doing their job successfully in my mind. If widespread
> > fraud occurs and ARIN does not take action, then I feel strongly that
> > ARIN would not be doing their job.
> >
> > > Of course maybe if the needs tests were loosened fraud would be
> > significantly reduced as there would be no need to submit fraudulent
> > requests.
> >
> > Do you mean that if it were permissible to walk away with someone
> > else's belongings, then theft would no longer occur? Your statement
> is
> > true without making any sense at all.
> >
> > > I'm sure an org willing to submit a fraudulent request would tell
> > > you
> > that they do have a need but they may not happen to meet the
> current
> > arbitrary (and they are arbitrary) policy.
> >
> > I disagree completely. ARIN's role is to satisfy needs-based requests.
> > Exercising judgement of whether a need is realistic is doing their job.
> >
> > The only thing arbitrary here is your desire for there to be no rules
> > at all. Deeply amusing, but not helpful for realistic policy.
> >
> > --
> > Jo Rhett
> > +1 (415) 999-1798
> > Skype: jorhett
> > Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and
> internet
> > projects.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the
> ARIN
> > Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage 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  Mon Dec 15 13:34:24 2014
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 18:34:24 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
In-Reply-To: <DEB3C120-A8FF-4D7A-919F-B8D23B364BFB@corp.arin.net>
References: <91f996151ef44b03b2179e253c0af1db@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu><544733
	1D.9040009@ipinc.net><CAMDXq5MSG6jEdMWSyAfE340_+gx=WmQUSuxu1XvJuV19RzTdGQ@
	m
	ail.gmail.com><4cbf6e7c109641259f86835fc5435cce@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu><544
	EC27A.5040901@ipinc.net><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016598325E@ENI-MAI
	L.eclipse-networks.com><99F6C7BF-E856-45D1-8D65-3874824DE0D8@netconsonance.
	com><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A5102BE@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<DEB3C120-A8FF-4D7A-919F-B8D23B364BFB@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A51F2D6@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

I would point out that very clearly, anyone who wanted a /24 got one from Jon, just by requesting one.  I was one of the many folks who requested and received a /24. I also requested 4 consecutive /24's (Class C's) for a larger customer and received those as well.  I'm also reasonably sure that if I had requested a /8 (Class A) - I would not have gotten one - but I would not have gotten zero resources.  

The first word in item #1 below is Fair.  I agree we need balance and as I think you know by now I strongly do not think current policy is FAIR at the small end. When big org requests big block they either get a big block or a smaller block.  When medium org requests medium block they either get medium block or they get smaller block. When small org requests small block they either get small block or NO BLOCK.  This is inherently UNFAIR in my opinion.  I see no balance when a small org is discriminated against because they are small and have limited means. Thus Dave and Sue in their garage without the proverbial business plan or whatever to prove their need are shut out - and that is against ARINs Mission. 

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: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] 
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 7:20 AM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

On Dec 15, 2014, at 1:17 AM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
> ...
> I find that line of thinking about as far as one can get from the spirit of Jon Postel and the way he went about advancing the Internet.  When I read the original Mission Statement for ARIN or even the current one, I don't see that "needs" are more important than the actual mission of advancement and allocation.  Good stewardship should be practiced but NOT to the detriment of the mission of advancement and allocation.  

Steven - 

Note that Jon Postal was instrumental to ARIN's founding and served an ex-officio Trustee at its inception.  The policies that were in effect at the time are stated in RFC 2050 (which Jon was one of the
authors) and includes the following text regarding goals - 

"
   Internet address space is distributed according to the following
   three goals:

   1) Conservation: Fair distribution of globally unique Internet address
   space according to the operational needs of the end-users and Internet
   Service Providers operating networks using this address space.
   Prevention of stockpiling in order to maximize the lifetime of the
   Internet address space.
    ...
   3) Registration: Provision of a public registry documenting address
   space allocation and assignment.  This is necessary to ensure
   uniqueness and to provide information for Internet trouble shooting
   at all levels.
   ..
   All the above goals may sometimes be in conflict with the interests of
   individual end-users or Internet service providers.  Careful analysis
   and judgement is necessary in each individual case to find an
   appropriate compromise.
"

This supports your view that the goal of conservation is not more important than provision of a public registry - the goals must be balanced with one another.  

These same principles live on in ARIN's policy development process, <https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html>, which states:

"Policies for Internet number resource management must be evaluated for soundness against three overarching technical requirements: conservation, aggregation, and registration. ... Policies must achieve a technically sound balance of these requirements, and support for these technical requirements must be documented in the assessment of the policy change."

> In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?  I never met Jon Postel but from what I've heard about him, I suspect he would frown on some of the current policies regarding needs.

Whether he would frown is unknowable, but it's unlikely that Jon would be surprised that we were allocating accordingly to operational need.  
(He'd probably be more surprised that we had market-based transfers going on, given that RFC 2050 directs reclamation for any unneeded address
space...)

> My comments below and others I have made are intended to try to bring some balance into the discussion and my hope is that some day in the near future that will happen.  I certainly don't desire there be no rules at all but the very loose rules followed by Jon Postel worked pretty well advancing the Internet. 

As noted above, the guidelines for address management have evolved over time, and even before ARIN have included distribution based on operational need; i.e. your reference to Jon's "loose rules" is probably not correct except in the very earliest days of the Internet.  It's probably far more important that the policies used in the management of IP address space are developed by the community per their current requirements and expectations.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN







From hannigan at gmail.com  Mon Dec 15 13:41:11 2014
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 13:41:11 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
In-Reply-To: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28015F4C1298@MAIL1.polartel.local>
References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28015F4C1298@MAIL1.polartel.local>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5MZZcwT6G-ZmJ5eo43LgMVtsuRSkdfdYdqmFnN9KXaGpw@mail.gmail.com>

"Needs testing" isn't actually the problem IMHO. Its not unrealistic to ask
what someone is going to use the addresses for.  Over the last five years,
policy ("the problem") has become disconnected with existing conditions and
vague allowing too much interpretation. Its impossible to know what need
actually is with the current regime.

I like the idea of not testing /24s. It solves the ambiguity problem. It
will also make them more attractive and the market more efficient by
reducing the cost of the transaction and increasing utilization of /24s
available to the market (legacy).  By utilization I mean capturing actual
registrations.

To be honest, from a market pressure perspective, what is needed _right
now_ is a sixth competitive registry. That would sort this mess out right
quick.

Best,

-M<





On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Kevin Kargel <kkargel at polartel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> The internet is a different place now and things change and evolve over
> time.  If a modern day entrepreneur needed IP space they would have little
> or no problem finding all the IPv6 space they need at little or no cost and
> with virtually no trouble.
>
> When Jobs and Wozniak were starting up IPV4 was a different animal.
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>] *On Behalf Of *Steven Ryerse
> *Sent:* Monday, December 15, 2014 10:16 AM
> *To:* Bill Darte
> *Cc:* arin-ppml at arin.net
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>
>
>
> By that definition, I wonder if Jobs and Wozniak needed IP resources today
> for their garage - could they get them?  Whether you like what they did or
> not they certainly have advanced the Internet.  And if John and Sue are
> working in their garage today and need a /24 or a /22 from ARIN to further
> the Internet, can they get them?  With today?s policies ? probably not as
> they might not have a business plan yet, or signed contract with
> contractors, or gotten their funding - or any other measure of need that is
> currently indoctrinated in policy.  What a shame!
>
>
>
>
>
> *Steven Ryerse*
>
> *President*
>
> *100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338*
>
> *www.eclipse-networks.com <http://www.eclipse-networks.com>*
>
> *770.656.1460 - Cell*
>
> *770.399.9099- Office*
>
>
>
> [image: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse
> Networks, Inc.
>
>         Conquering Complex Networks?
>
>
>
> *From:* Bill Darte [mailto:billdarte at gmail.com <billdarte at gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Monday, December 15, 2014 6:10 AM
> *To:* Steven Ryerse
> *Cc:* Jo Rhett; arin-ppml at arin.net
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>
>
>
> Steven Ryerse said:
>
> In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based
> policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of
> advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need,
> why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy)
> now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?
>
>
>
> The community through ARIN is ensuring that the distribution of v4 IP
> addresses are according to its policies which have been and should continue
> to be needs-based..IMO.  They are not 'caught up' in the sense that they
> cannot proceed...ndeed, they are doing the precise business that policy and
> its mission calls for.  That some orgs that cannot meet the needs hurdle
> are denied...does not mean that others who truly have a need are not
> serviced.  Those with clear need advance the Internet and do so
> demonstrably...whereas those without a demonstrable need MAY advance the
> Internet as well, but its a greater risk to the community and one which the
> community has chosen to forgo.
>
>
>
> Bill Darte
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Steven Ryerse <
> SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>
> Though it has been a few months since I made those comments, I appreciate
> your feedback.  Your description of "walk away with someone else?s
> belongings" seems to indicate that somehow the use of the Internet and the
> IP addresses that make the use of the Internet possible, is owned by ARIN
> or this Community or maybe ARIN and this Community.
>
> I find that line of thinking about as far as one can get from the spirit
> of Jon Postel and the way he went about advancing the Internet.  When I
> read the original Mission Statement for ARIN or even the current one, I
> don't see that "needs" are more important than the actual mission of
> advancement and allocation.  Good stewardship should be practiced but NOT
> to the detriment of the mission of advancement and allocation.
>
> In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based
> policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of
> advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need,
> why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy)
> now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?
> I never met Jon Postel but from what I've heard about him, I suspect he
> would frown on some of the current policies regarding needs.  My comments
> below and others I have made are intended to try to bring some balance into
> the discussion and my hope is that some day in the near future that will
> happen.  I certainly don't desire there be no rules at all but the very
> loose rules followed by Jon Postel worked pretty well advancing the
> Internet.  I think we could loosen the current policies like has been done
> in other regions and it would have a positive outcome.  My two cents.
>
> Steven Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> www.eclipse-networks.com
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099- Office
>
> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>                      Conquering Complex Networks?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jo Rhett [mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 12:17 AM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>
> On Oct 27, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>
> wrote:
> > If in the spirit of trying to prevent fraud non-fraudulent requests get
> rejected, then Arin's mission stops being fulfilled.  I think it is
> important to make sure the mission is respected first and stopping fraud
> second or third or fifth or whatever.  We could stop all fraud by stopping
> all allocations but of course that makes no sense.  I would also point out
> that even when fraud happens Arin's Mission is still being fulfilled.
>
> I completely disagree. There are dozens if not hundreds of people with
> non-fraudulent requests who get denied for insufficient justification. That
> is ARIN doing their job successfully in my mind. If widespread fraud occurs
> and ARIN does not take action, then I feel strongly that ARIN would not be
> doing their job.
>
> > Of course maybe if the needs tests were loosened fraud would be
> significantly reduced as there would be no need to submit fraudulent
> requests.
>
> Do you mean that if it were permissible to walk away with someone else?s
> belongings, then theft would no longer occur? Your statement is true
> without making any sense at all.
>
> > I'm sure an org willing to submit a fraudulent request would tell you
> that they do have a need but they may not happen to meet the current
> arbitrary (and they are arbitrary) policy.
>
> I disagree completely. ARIN?s role is to satisfy needs-based requests.
> Exercising judgement of whether a need is realistic is doing their job.
>
> The only thing arbitrary here is your desire for there to be no rules at
> all. Deeply amusing, but not helpful for realistic policy.
>
> --
> Jo Rhett
> +1 (415) 999-1798
> Skype: jorhett
> Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet
> projects.
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141215/9dff42df/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1468 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141215/9dff42df/attachment.jpg>

From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Mon Dec 15 13:49:57 2014
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 18:49:57 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
In-Reply-To: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28015F4C1298@MAIL1.polartel.local>
References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28015F4C1298@MAIL1.polartel.local>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A51F3A8@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

I saw folks in this Community when discussing a policy proposal earlier this year ? advocating for needs testing on all IPv6 allocations. I wanted to scream when I read it!

As far as the Internet being different today, ARINs Mission doesn?t go out the window because of Internet changes.

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

[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 Kevin Kargel
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 1:12 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use


The internet is a different place now and things change and evolve over time.  If a modern day entrepreneur needed IP space they would have little or no problem finding all the IPv6 space they need at little or no cost and with virtually no trouble.
When Jobs and Wozniak were starting up IPV4 was a different animal.
Kevin


From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 10:16 AM
To: Bill Darte
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

By that definition, I wonder if Jobs and Wozniak needed IP resources today for their garage - could they get them?  Whether you like what they did or not they certainly have advanced the Internet.  And if John and Sue are working in their garage today and need a /24 or a /22 from ARIN to further the Internet, can they get them?  With today?s policies ? probably not as they might not have a business plan yet, or signed contract with contractors, or gotten their funding - or any other measure of need that is currently indoctrinated in policy.  What a shame!


Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
www.eclipse-networks.com<http://www.eclipse-networks.com>
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office

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

From: Bill Darte [mailto:billdarte at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 6:10 AM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Jo Rhett; arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

Steven Ryerse said:
In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?

The community through ARIN is ensuring that the distribution of v4 IP addresses are according to its policies which have been and should continue to be needs-based..IMO.  They are not 'caught up' in the sense that they cannot proceed...ndeed, they are doing the precise business that policy and its mission calls for.  That some orgs that cannot meet the needs hurdle are denied...does not mean that others who truly have a need are not serviced.  Those with clear need advance the Internet and do so demonstrably...whereas those without a demonstrable need MAY advance the Internet as well, but its a greater risk to the community and one which the community has chosen to forgo.

Bill Darte

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
Though it has been a few months since I made those comments, I appreciate your feedback.  Your description of "walk away with someone else?s belongings" seems to indicate that somehow the use of the Internet and the IP addresses that make the use of the Internet possible, is owned by ARIN or this Community or maybe ARIN and this Community.

I find that line of thinking about as far as one can get from the spirit of Jon Postel and the way he went about advancing the Internet.  When I read the original Mission Statement for ARIN or even the current one, I don't see that "needs" are more important than the actual mission of advancement and allocation.  Good stewardship should be practiced but NOT to the detriment of the mission of advancement and allocation.

In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?  I never met Jon Postel but from what I've heard about him, I suspect he would frown on some of the current policies regarding needs.  My comments below and others I have made are intended to try to bring some balance into the discussion and my hope is that some day in the near future that will happen.  I certainly don't desire there be no rules at all but the very loose rules followed by Jon Postel worked pretty well advancing the Internet.  I think we could loosen the current policies like has been done in other regions and it would have a positive outcome.  My two cents.

Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
www.eclipse-networks.com<http://www.eclipse-networks.com>
770.656.1460<tel:770.656.1460> - Cell
770.399.9099<tel:770.399.9099>- Office

? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
                     Conquering Complex Networks?

-----Original Message-----
From: Jo Rhett [mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com<mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com>]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 12:17 AM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

On Oct 27, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
> If in the spirit of trying to prevent fraud non-fraudulent requests get rejected, then Arin's mission stops being fulfilled.  I think it is important to make sure the mission is respected first and stopping fraud second or third or fifth or whatever.  We could stop all fraud by stopping all allocations but of course that makes no sense.  I would also point out that even when fraud happens Arin's Mission is still being fulfilled.

I completely disagree. There are dozens if not hundreds of people with non-fraudulent requests who get denied for insufficient justification. That is ARIN doing their job successfully in my mind. If widespread fraud occurs and ARIN does not take action, then I feel strongly that ARIN would not be doing their job.

> Of course maybe if the needs tests were loosened fraud would be significantly reduced as there would be no need to submit fraudulent requests.

Do you mean that if it were permissible to walk away with someone else?s belongings, then theft would no longer occur? Your statement is true without making any sense at all.

> I'm sure an org willing to submit a fraudulent request would tell you that they do have a need but they may not happen to meet the current arbitrary (and they are arbitrary) policy.

I disagree completely. ARIN?s role is to satisfy needs-based requests. Exercising judgement of whether a need is realistic is doing their job.

The only thing arbitrary here is your desire for there to be no rules at all. Deeply amusing, but not helpful for realistic policy.

--
Jo Rhett
+1 (415) 999-1798<tel:%2B1%20%28415%29%20999-1798>
Skype: jorhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.

_______________________________________________
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/20141215/0b9445db/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1468 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141215/0b9445db/attachment.jpg>

From athompso at athompso.net  Mon Dec 15 14:28:12 2014
From: athompso at athompso.net (Adam Thompson)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 13:28:12 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A51F2D6@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <91f996151ef44b03b2179e253c0af1db@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu><544733	1D.9040009@ipinc.net><CAMDXq5MSG6jEdMWSyAfE340_+gx=WmQUSuxu1XvJuV19RzTdGQ@	m	ail.gmail.com><4cbf6e7c109641259f86835fc5435cce@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu><544	EC27A.5040901@ipinc.net><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016598325E@ENI-MAI	L.eclipse-networks.com><99F6C7BF-E856-45D1-8D65-3874824DE0D8@netconsonance.	com><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A5102BE@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>	<DEB3C120-A8FF-4D7A-919F-B8D23B364BFB@corp.arin.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A51F2D6@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <548F364C.9010102@athompso.net>

On 14-12-15 12:34 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> I would point out that very clearly, anyone who wanted a /24 got one from Jon, just by requesting one.  I was one of the many folks who requested and received a /24. I also requested 4 consecutive /24's (Class C's) for a larger customer and received those as well.  I'm also reasonably sure that if I had requested a /8 (Class A) - I would not have gotten one - but I would not have gotten zero resources.
>
> The first word in item #1 below is Fair.  I agree we need balance and as I think you know by now I strongly do not think current policy is FAIR at the small end. When big org requests big block they either get a big block or a smaller block.  When medium org requests medium block they either get medium block or they get smaller block. When small org requests small block they either get small block or NO BLOCK.  This is inherently UNFAIR in my opinion.  I see no balance when a small org is discriminated against because they are small and have limited means. Thus Dave and Sue in their garage without the proverbial business plan or whatever to prove their need are shut out - and that is against ARINs Mission.

Adding my $0.02, and to some extent probably setting up a straw-man 
argument:

While I agree that *some* needs-based testing seems reasonable even for 
a /24, I feel the barrier should be minimal - i.e. prove that a legal 
entity exists (including a Legal Person, which can include an individual 
person) and has valid contact information.

In fact, if the needs test were removed altogether for /24s, I would 
expect this scenario to play out:
     - all /24s get depleted rapidly
     - ARIN no longer issues /24s, and continues to employ needs-based 
testing for larger blocks
     - the commercial transfer market becomes the only place to get /24s
     - a market value for /24 rapidly is established and more-or-less 
settles
     - the "Joe & Sue in a garage" client now has two choices:
         a) buy a portable /24 from a transfer market and register it 
with ARIN, if they have the resources to do so, or
         b) accept (and/or negotiate) whatever their ISP gives them, if 
they do not.

This scenario could - potentially - ease ARIN's workload noticeably in 
the very-small end of the spectrum, while allowing the free market to 
control whether a new entrant gets PI space or not.

This works analogously to the way the real-estate market works: if you 
can't afford commercial space, you start in your garage or basement, and 
you move out once you can afford commercial real estate.  If you can 
afford a storefront retail location, go ahead and pay for it - whether 
you ever open up to the public or not, whether you use it or not.
If you can't afford a tiny PI allocation, use whatever your ISP gives 
you.  If you can, go ahead and pay for it - whether you use it or not.


To rebut in advance the usual bogeyman of "but, speculators!": 
counter-intuitively, speculators are not a bad thing.  (See 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defending_the_Undefendable for an 
accessible analysis of how speculators are necessary in a Capitalist 
system.)
Is the company that owns the shopping mall a "speculator"?  What about 
the REITs, developers and other types of companies that buy up land and 
then sell it to individuals?  The function of a "speculator" is to help 
smooth out price fluctuations.  I have no interest whatsoever in seeing 
a "spot" market for PI space.


In short, I would be willing to support removing needs-based testing for 
/24s.  It would harm people like myself, who run an entire ASN off a 
/24, but at the same time would benefit the most typical sort of entity 
(also like myself ;-) who needs a tiny PI block: multi-homed 
organizations who need redundancy but can't otherwise meet the 
utilization threshold.  Their numbers are increasing all the time, and 
are reflective of small- and medium-business numbers overall in North 
America, which in turn (according to multiple gov
t and academic sources) are what drives growth in North America.  I 
don't have any idea what the politico-economic situation is like in the 
Caribbean, so don't make any claims about that.

-- 
-Adam Thompson
  athompso at athompso.net
  Cell: +1 204 291-7950
  Fax: +1 204 489-6515



From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Mon Dec 15 14:40:42 2014
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 19:40:42 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
In-Reply-To: <548F364C.9010102@athompso.net>
References: <91f996151ef44b03b2179e253c0af1db@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu><544733
	1D.9040009@ipinc.net><CAMDXq5MSG6jEdMWSyAfE340_+gx=WmQUSuxu1XvJuV19RzTdGQ@
	m	ail.gmail.com><4cbf6e7c109641259f86835fc5435cce@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu><
	544	EC27A.5040901@ipinc.net><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016598325E@ENI
	-MAI	L.eclipse-networks.com><99F6C7BF-E856-45D1-8D65-3874824DE0D8@netconson
	ance.	com><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A5102BE@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-netw
	orks.com>	<DEB3C120-A8FF-4D7A-919F-B8D23B364BFB@corp.arin.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A51F2D6@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<548F364C.9010102@athompso.net>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A51F562@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

Amen!  I agree 100% with what you have described below. 

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: Adam Thompson [mailto:athompso at athompso.net] 
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 2:28 PM
To: Steven Ryerse; John Curran
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

On 14-12-15 12:34 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> I would point out that very clearly, anyone who wanted a /24 got one from Jon, just by requesting one.  I was one of the many folks who requested and received a /24. I also requested 4 consecutive /24's (Class C's) for a larger customer and received those as well.  I'm also reasonably sure that if I had requested a /8 (Class A) - I would not have gotten one - but I would not have gotten zero resources.
>
> The first word in item #1 below is Fair.  I agree we need balance and as I think you know by now I strongly do not think current policy is FAIR at the small end. When big org requests big block they either get a big block or a smaller block.  When medium org requests medium block they either get medium block or they get smaller block. When small org requests small block they either get small block or NO BLOCK.  This is inherently UNFAIR in my opinion.  I see no balance when a small org is discriminated against because they are small and have limited means. Thus Dave and Sue in their garage without the proverbial business plan or whatever to prove their need are shut out - and that is against ARINs Mission.

Adding my $0.02, and to some extent probably setting up a straw-man
argument:

While I agree that *some* needs-based testing seems reasonable even for a /24, I feel the barrier should be minimal - i.e. prove that a legal entity exists (including a Legal Person, which can include an individual
person) and has valid contact information.

In fact, if the needs test were removed altogether for /24s, I would expect this scenario to play out:
     - all /24s get depleted rapidly
     - ARIN no longer issues /24s, and continues to employ needs-based testing for larger blocks
     - the commercial transfer market becomes the only place to get /24s
     - a market value for /24 rapidly is established and more-or-less settles
     - the "Joe & Sue in a garage" client now has two choices:
         a) buy a portable /24 from a transfer market and register it with ARIN, if they have the resources to do so, or
         b) accept (and/or negotiate) whatever their ISP gives them, if they do not.

This scenario could - potentially - ease ARIN's workload noticeably in the very-small end of the spectrum, while allowing the free market to control whether a new entrant gets PI space or not.

This works analogously to the way the real-estate market works: if you can't afford commercial space, you start in your garage or basement, and you move out once you can afford commercial real estate.  If you can afford a storefront retail location, go ahead and pay for it - whether you ever open up to the public or not, whether you use it or not.
If you can't afford a tiny PI allocation, use whatever your ISP gives you.  If you can, go ahead and pay for it - whether you use it or not.


To rebut in advance the usual bogeyman of "but, speculators!": 
counter-intuitively, speculators are not a bad thing.  (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defending_the_Undefendable for an accessible analysis of how speculators are necessary in a Capitalist
system.)
Is the company that owns the shopping mall a "speculator"?  What about the REITs, developers and other types of companies that buy up land and then sell it to individuals?  The function of a "speculator" is to help smooth out price fluctuations.  I have no interest whatsoever in seeing a "spot" market for PI space.


In short, I would be willing to support removing needs-based testing for /24s.  It would harm people like myself, who run an entire ASN off a /24, but at the same time would benefit the most typical sort of entity (also like myself ;-) who needs a tiny PI block: multi-homed organizations who need redundancy but can't otherwise meet the utilization threshold.  Their numbers are increasing all the time, and are reflective of small- and medium-business numbers overall in North America, which in turn (according to multiple gov t and academic sources) are what drives growth in North America.  I don't have any idea what the politico-economic situation is like in the Caribbean, so don't make any claims about that.

--
-Adam Thompson
  athompso at athompso.net
  Cell: +1 204 291-7950
  Fax: +1 204 489-6515


From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Mon Dec 15 14:45:51 2014
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 19:45:51 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5MZZcwT6G-ZmJ5eo43LgMVtsuRSkdfdYdqmFnN9KXaGpw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28015F4C1298@MAIL1.polartel.local>
	<CAMDXq5MZZcwT6G-ZmJ5eo43LgMVtsuRSkdfdYdqmFnN9KXaGpw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A51F5D6@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

Agreed!

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

[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 Martin Hannigan
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 1:41 PM
To: Kevin Kargel
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use



"Needs testing" isn't actually the problem IMHO. Its not unrealistic to ask what someone is going to use the addresses for.  Over the last five years, policy ("the problem") has become disconnected with existing conditions and vague allowing too much interpretation. Its impossible to know what need actually is with the current regime.
I like the idea of not testing /24s. It solves the ambiguity problem. It will also make them more attractive and the market more efficient by reducing the cost of the transaction and increasing utilization of /24s available to the market (legacy).  By utilization I mean capturing actual registrations.
To be honest, from a market pressure perspective, what is needed _right now_ is a sixth competitive registry. That would sort this mess out right quick.
Best,
-M<




On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Kevin Kargel <kkargel at polartel.com<mailto:kkargel at polartel.com>> wrote:

The internet is a different place now and things change and evolve over time.  If a modern day entrepreneur needed IP space they would have little or no problem finding all the IPv6 space they need at little or no cost and with virtually no trouble.
When Jobs and Wozniak were starting up IPV4 was a different animal.
Kevin


From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 10:16 AM
To: Bill Darte
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

By that definition, I wonder if Jobs and Wozniak needed IP resources today for their garage - could they get them?  Whether you like what they did or not they certainly have advanced the Internet.  And if John and Sue are working in their garage today and need a /24 or a /22 from ARIN to further the Internet, can they get them?  With today?s policies ? probably not as they might not have a business plan yet, or signed contract with contractors, or gotten their funding - or any other measure of need that is currently indoctrinated in policy.  What a shame!


Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
www.eclipse-networks.com<http://www.eclipse-networks.com>
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office

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

From: Bill Darte [mailto:billdarte at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 6:10 AM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Jo Rhett; arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

Steven Ryerse said:
In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?

The community through ARIN is ensuring that the distribution of v4 IP addresses are according to its policies which have been and should continue to be needs-based..IMO.  They are not 'caught up' in the sense that they cannot proceed...ndeed, they are doing the precise business that policy and its mission calls for.  That some orgs that cannot meet the needs hurdle are denied...does not mean that others who truly have a need are not serviced.  Those with clear need advance the Internet and do so demonstrably...whereas those without a demonstrable need MAY advance the Internet as well, but its a greater risk to the community and one which the community has chosen to forgo.

Bill Darte

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
Though it has been a few months since I made those comments, I appreciate your feedback.  Your description of "walk away with someone else?s belongings" seems to indicate that somehow the use of the Internet and the IP addresses that make the use of the Internet possible, is owned by ARIN or this Community or maybe ARIN and this Community.

I find that line of thinking about as far as one can get from the spirit of Jon Postel and the way he went about advancing the Internet.  When I read the original Mission Statement for ARIN or even the current one, I don't see that "needs" are more important than the actual mission of advancement and allocation.  Good stewardship should be practiced but NOT to the detriment of the mission of advancement and allocation.

In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?  I never met Jon Postel but from what I've heard about him, I suspect he would frown on some of the current policies regarding needs.  My comments below and others I have made are intended to try to bring some balance into the discussion and my hope is that some day in the near future that will happen.  I certainly don't desire there be no rules at all but the very loose rules followed by Jon Postel worked pretty well advancing the Internet.  I think we could loosen the current policies like has been done in other regions and it would have a positive outcome.  My two cents.

Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
www.eclipse-networks.com<http://www.eclipse-networks.com>
770.656.1460<tel:770.656.1460> - Cell
770.399.9099<tel:770.399.9099>- Office

? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
                     Conquering Complex Networks?

-----Original Message-----
From: Jo Rhett [mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com<mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com>]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 12:17 AM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

On Oct 27, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
> If in the spirit of trying to prevent fraud non-fraudulent requests get rejected, then Arin's mission stops being fulfilled.  I think it is important to make sure the mission is respected first and stopping fraud second or third or fifth or whatever.  We could stop all fraud by stopping all allocations but of course that makes no sense.  I would also point out that even when fraud happens Arin's Mission is still being fulfilled.

I completely disagree. There are dozens if not hundreds of people with non-fraudulent requests who get denied for insufficient justification. That is ARIN doing their job successfully in my mind. If widespread fraud occurs and ARIN does not take action, then I feel strongly that ARIN would not be doing their job.

> Of course maybe if the needs tests were loosened fraud would be significantly reduced as there would be no need to submit fraudulent requests.

Do you mean that if it were permissible to walk away with someone else?s belongings, then theft would no longer occur? Your statement is true without making any sense at all.

> I'm sure an org willing to submit a fraudulent request would tell you that they do have a need but they may not happen to meet the current arbitrary (and they are arbitrary) policy.

I disagree completely. ARIN?s role is to satisfy needs-based requests. Exercising judgement of whether a need is realistic is doing their job.

The only thing arbitrary here is your desire for there to be no rules at all. Deeply amusing, but not helpful for realistic policy.

--
Jo Rhett
+1 (415) 999-1798<tel:%2B1%20%28415%29%20999-1798>
Skype: jorhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.

_______________________________________________
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.

_______________________________________________
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/20141215/863094ad/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1468 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141215/863094ad/attachment.jpg>

From athompso at athompso.net  Mon Dec 15 14:49:37 2014
From: athompso at athompso.net (Adam Thompson)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 13:49:37 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A51F5D6@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28015F4C1298@MAIL1.polartel.local>	<CAMDXq5MZZcwT6G-ZmJ5eo43LgMVtsuRSkdfdYdqmFnN9KXaGpw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A51F5D6@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <548F3B51.6080906@athompso.net>

> *From:* arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] 
> *On Behalf Of *Martin Hannigan
>
> "Needs testing" isn't actually the problem IMHO. Its not unrealistic 
> to ask what someone is going to use the addresses for.  Over the last 
> five years, policy ("the problem") has become disconnected with 
> existing conditions and vague allowing too much interpretation. Its 
> impossible to know what need actually is with the current regime.
>
> I like the idea of not testing /24s. It solves the ambiguity problem. 
> It will also make them more attractive and the market more efficient 
> by reducing the cost of the transaction and increasing utilization of 
> /24s available to the market (legacy).  By utilization I mean 
> capturing actual registrations.
>
> To be honest, from a market pressure perspective, what is needed 
> _right now_ is a sixth competitive registry. That would sort this mess 
> out right quick.
> Best,
> -M<
>

Martin, in the scenario I outlined a few minutes ago, would the transfer 
market substitute effectively for your 6th registry?

-- 
-Adam Thompson
  athompso at athompso.net
  Cell: +1 204 291-7950
  Fax: +1 204 489-6515

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141215/434b589a/attachment.htm>

From hannigan at gmail.com  Mon Dec 15 15:59:27 2014
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 15:59:27 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
In-Reply-To: <548F3B51.6080906@athompso.net>
References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28015F4C1298@MAIL1.polartel.local>
	<CAMDXq5MZZcwT6G-ZmJ5eo43LgMVtsuRSkdfdYdqmFnN9KXaGpw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A51F5D6@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<548F3B51.6080906@athompso.net>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5PT7=5OjQxt49QA7B5bENVdNNf7e9y8vXdnUy1-x70nSA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Adam Thompson <athompso at athompso.net>
wrote:
>
>
>  *From:* arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>] *On Behalf Of *Martin Hannigan
>
>   "Needs testing" isn't actually the problem IMHO. Its not unrealistic to
> ask what someone is going to use the addresses for.  Over the last five
> years, policy ("the problem") has become disconnected with existing
> conditions and vague allowing too much interpretation. Its impossible to
> know what need actually is with the current regime.
>
> I like the idea of not testing /24s. It solves the ambiguity problem. It
> will also make them more attractive and the market more efficient by
> reducing the cost of the transaction and increasing utilization of /24s
> available to the market (legacy).  By utilization I mean capturing actual
> registrations.
>
> To be honest, from a market pressure perspective, what is needed _right
> now_ is a sixth competitive registry. That would sort this mess out right
> quick.
> Best,
> -M<
>
>
> Martin, in the scenario I outlined a few minutes ago, would the transfer
> market substitute effectively for your 6th registry?
>


That's a complicated question. The current transfer market is socialistic
and artificially regulated. A competitive registry will create interesting
reforms. Not just with the needs testing issue or improved legacy address
registration, but policy consistency (compatible transfer policy for
example`) with other regions and last but not least important even if a
residual issue for this discussion, a benefit. Expenses.

To answer your question. I don't think so.

Best,

-M<
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141215/d0cbd3c8/attachment.htm>

From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Mon Dec 15 16:36:19 2014
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 21:36:19 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
In-Reply-To: <511bc475bd6b46be84dbf7ed15f0b564@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <91f996151ef44b03b2179e253c0af1db@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu><544733
	1D.9040009@ipinc.net><CAMDXq5MSG6jEdMWSyAfE340_+gx=WmQUSuxu1XvJuV19RzTdGQ@m
	ail.gmail.com><4cbf6e7c109641259f86835fc5435cce@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu><544
	EC27A.5040901@ipinc.net><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016598325E@ENI-MAI
	L.eclipse-networks.com><99F6C7BF-E856-45D1-8D65-3874824DE0D8@netconsonance.
	com><78acab535c59476ab7bf974a132d69d3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<511bc475bd6b46be84dbf7ed15f0b564@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A51F96A@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

I support 2014-1.  FYI

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: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 1:29 PM
To: 'Jo Rhett'; Steven Ryerse
Cc: 'arin-ppml at arin.net'
Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

Oops, seems I forgot to add the link
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_1.html 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 1:28 PM
> To: 'Jo Rhett'; 'Steven Ryerse'
> Cc: 'arin-ppml at arin.net'
> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
> 
> Jo and Steven:
> As the shepherd for 2014-1 I am having trouble understanding the 
> relevance of arguments about needs assessment to the Out of Region Use 
> proposal. That proposal does not change needs assessment policies.
> 
> Here is a link to the latest draft of 2014-1. Do you have any comments 
> specifically about 2014-1?
> 
> --MM
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-
> bounces at arin.net]
> > On Behalf Of Jo Rhett
> > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 12:17 AM
> > To: Steven Ryerse
> > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
> >
> > On Oct 27, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse- 
> > networks.com> wrote:
> > > If in the spirit of trying to prevent fraud non-fraudulent 
> > > requests get
> > rejected, then Arin's mission stops being fulfilled.  I think it is 
> > important to make sure the mission is respected first and stopping 
> > fraud second or third or fifth or whatever.  We could stop all fraud 
> > by stopping all allocations but of course that makes no sense.  I 
> > would also point out that even when fraud happens Arin's Mission is
> still being fulfilled.
> >
> > I completely disagree. There are dozens if not hundreds of people
> with
> > non-fraudulent requests who get denied for insufficient justification.
> > That is ARIN doing their job successfully in my mind. If widespread 
> > fraud occurs and ARIN does not take action, then I feel strongly 
> > that ARIN would not be doing their job.
> >
> > > Of course maybe if the needs tests were loosened fraud would be
> > significantly reduced as there would be no need to submit fraudulent 
> > requests.
> >
> > Do you mean that if it were permissible to walk away with someone 
> > else's belongings, then theft would no longer occur? Your statement
> is
> > true without making any sense at all.
> >
> > > I'm sure an org willing to submit a fraudulent request would tell 
> > > you
> > that they do have a need but they may not happen to meet the
> current
> > arbitrary (and they are arbitrary) policy.
> >
> > I disagree completely. ARIN's role is to satisfy needs-based requests.
> > Exercising judgement of whether a need is realistic is doing their job.
> >
> > The only thing arbitrary here is your desire for there to be no 
> > rules at all. Deeply amusing, but not helpful for realistic policy.
> >
> > --
> > Jo Rhett
> > +1 (415) 999-1798
> > Skype: jorhett
> > Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and
> internet
> > projects.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the
> ARIN
> > Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

From owen at delong.com  Mon Dec 15 17:13:40 2014
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:13:40 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A51F3A8@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28015F4C1298@MAIL1.polartel.local>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A51F3A8@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <9C0E5E36-4FE6-4C66-BEBB-78BF5D9D98B9@delong.com>

We have always had and still do have needs testing on all IPv6 allocations and assignments.

Do you know anyone who is having trouble getting the IPv6 space that they need?

Owen

> On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:49 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
> 
> I saw folks in this Community when discussing a policy proposal earlier this year ? advocating for needs testing on all IPv6 allocations. I wanted to scream when I read it!  
>  
> As far as the Internet being different today, ARINs Mission doesn?t go out the window because of Internet changes.
>  
> Steven Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099- Office
>  
> <image001.jpg>? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>         Conquering Complex Networks?
>  
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Kargel
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 1:12 PM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>  
>  
> The internet is a different place now and things change and evolve over time.  If a modern day entrepreneur needed IP space they would have little or no problem finding all the IPv6 space they need at little or no cost and with virtually no trouble. 
> When Jobs and Wozniak were starting up IPV4 was a different animal.
> Kevin
>  
>  
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 10:16 AM
> To: Bill Darte
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>  
> By that definition, I wonder if Jobs and Wozniak needed IP resources today for their garage - could they get them?  Whether you like what they did or not they certainly have advanced the Internet.  And if John and Sue are working in their garage today and need a /24 or a /22 from ARIN to further the Internet, can they get them?  With today?s policies ? probably not as they might not have a business plan yet, or signed contract with contractors, or gotten their funding - or any other measure of need that is currently indoctrinated in policy.  What a shame! 
>  
>  
> Steven Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> www.eclipse-networks.com <http://www.eclipse-networks.com/>
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099- Office
>  
> <image001.jpg>? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>         Conquering Complex Networks?
>  
> From: Bill Darte [mailto:billdarte at gmail.com <mailto:billdarte at gmail.com>] 
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 6:10 AM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: Jo Rhett; arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>  
> Steven Ryerse said: 
> In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?
>  
> The community through ARIN is ensuring that the distribution of v4 IP addresses are according to its policies which have been and should continue to be needs-based..IMO.  They are not 'caught up' in the sense that they cannot proceed...ndeed, they are doing the precise business that policy and its mission calls for.  That some orgs that cannot meet the needs hurdle are denied...does not mean that others who truly have a need are not serviced.  Those with clear need advance the Internet and do so demonstrably...whereas those without a demonstrable need MAY advance the Internet as well, but its a greater risk to the community and one which the community has chosen to forgo.
>  
> Bill Darte
>  
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com <mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
> Though it has been a few months since I made those comments, I appreciate your feedback.  Your description of "walk away with someone else?s belongings" seems to indicate that somehow the use of the Internet and the IP addresses that make the use of the Internet possible, is owned by ARIN or this Community or maybe ARIN and this Community.
> 
> I find that line of thinking about as far as one can get from the spirit of Jon Postel and the way he went about advancing the Internet.  When I read the original Mission Statement for ARIN or even the current one, I don't see that "needs" are more important than the actual mission of advancement and allocation.  Good stewardship should be practiced but NOT to the detriment of the mission of advancement and allocation.
> 
> In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?  I never met Jon Postel but from what I've heard about him, I suspect he would frown on some of the current policies regarding needs.  My comments below and others I have made are intended to try to bring some balance into the discussion and my hope is that some day in the near future that will happen.  I certainly don't desire there be no rules at all but the very loose rules followed by Jon Postel worked pretty well advancing the Internet.  I think we could loosen the current policies like has been done in other regions and it would have a positive outcome.  My two cents.
> 
> Steven Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> www.eclipse-networks.com <http://www.eclipse-networks.com/>
> 770.656.1460 <tel:770.656.1460> - Cell
> 770.399.9099 <tel:770.399.9099>- Office
> 
> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>                      Conquering Complex Networks?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jo Rhett [mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com <mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com>]
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 12:17 AM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
> 
> On Oct 27, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com <mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
> > If in the spirit of trying to prevent fraud non-fraudulent requests get rejected, then Arin's mission stops being fulfilled.  I think it is important to make sure the mission is respected first and stopping fraud second or third or fifth or whatever.  We could stop all fraud by stopping all allocations but of course that makes no sense.  I would also point out that even when fraud happens Arin's Mission is still being fulfilled.
> 
> I completely disagree. There are dozens if not hundreds of people with non-fraudulent requests who get denied for insufficient justification. That is ARIN doing their job successfully in my mind. If widespread fraud occurs and ARIN does not take action, then I feel strongly that ARIN would not be doing their job.
> 
> > Of course maybe if the needs tests were loosened fraud would be significantly reduced as there would be no need to submit fraudulent requests.
> 
> Do you mean that if it were permissible to walk away with someone else?s belongings, then theft would no longer occur? Your statement is true without making any sense at all.
> 
> > I'm sure an org willing to submit a fraudulent request would tell you that they do have a need but they may not happen to meet the current arbitrary (and they are arbitrary) policy.
> 
> I disagree completely. ARIN?s role is to satisfy needs-based requests. Exercising judgement of whether a need is realistic is doing their job.
> 
> The only thing arbitrary here is your desire for there to be no rules at all. Deeply amusing, but not helpful for realistic policy.
> 
> --
> Jo Rhett
> +1 (415) 999-1798 <tel:%2B1%20%28415%29%20999-1798>
> Skype: jorhett
> Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
> Please contact info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141215/5e450c81/attachment.htm>

From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Mon Dec 15 17:21:11 2014
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 22:21:11 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
In-Reply-To: <9C0E5E36-4FE6-4C66-BEBB-78BF5D9D98B9@delong.com>
References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28015F4C1298@MAIL1.polartel.local >
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A51F3A8@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<9C0E5E36-4FE6-4C66-BEBB-78BF5D9D98B9@delong.com>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A51FB37@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

No, my request for a IPv6 /32 was fulfilled by ARIN.  My IPv6 comment below was concerning discussion of a policy proposal for a past proposal.

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

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

From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 5:14 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Kevin Kargel; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

We have always had and still do have needs testing on all IPv6 allocations and assignments.

Do you know anyone who is having trouble getting the IPv6 space that they need?

Owen

On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:49 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:

I saw folks in this Community when discussing a policy proposal earlier this year ? advocating for needs testing on all IPv6 allocations. I wanted to scream when I read it!

As far as the Internet being different today, ARINs Mission doesn?t go out the window because of Internet changes.

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

<image001.jpg>? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
        Conquering Complex Networks?

From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Kargel
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 1:12 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use


The internet is a different place now and things change and evolve over time.  If a modern day entrepreneur needed IP space they would have little or no problem finding all the IPv6 space they need at little or no cost and with virtually no trouble.
When Jobs and Wozniak were starting up IPV4 was a different animal.
Kevin


From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 10:16 AM
To: Bill Darte
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

By that definition, I wonder if Jobs and Wozniak needed IP resources today for their garage - could they get them?  Whether you like what they did or not they certainly have advanced the Internet.  And if John and Sue are working in their garage today and need a /24 or a /22 from ARIN to further the Internet, can they get them?  With today?s policies ? probably not as they might not have a business plan yet, or signed contract with contractors, or gotten their funding - or any other measure of need that is currently indoctrinated in policy.  What a shame!


Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
www.eclipse-networks.com<http://www.eclipse-networks.com/>
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office

<image001.jpg>? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
        Conquering Complex Networks?

From: Bill Darte [mailto:billdarte at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 6:10 AM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Jo Rhett; arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

Steven Ryerse said:
In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?

The community through ARIN is ensuring that the distribution of v4 IP addresses are according to its policies which have been and should continue to be needs-based..IMO.  They are not 'caught up' in the sense that they cannot proceed...ndeed, they are doing the precise business that policy and its mission calls for.  That some orgs that cannot meet the needs hurdle are denied...does not mean that others who truly have a need are not serviced.  Those with clear need advance the Internet and do so demonstrably...whereas those without a demonstrable need MAY advance the Internet as well, but its a greater risk to the community and one which the community has chosen to forgo.

Bill Darte

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
Though it has been a few months since I made those comments, I appreciate your feedback.  Your description of "walk away with someone else?s belongings" seems to indicate that somehow the use of the Internet and the IP addresses that make the use of the Internet possible, is owned by ARIN or this Community or maybe ARIN and this Community.

I find that line of thinking about as far as one can get from the spirit of Jon Postel and the way he went about advancing the Internet.  When I read the original Mission Statement for ARIN or even the current one, I don't see that "needs" are more important than the actual mission of advancement and allocation.  Good stewardship should be practiced but NOT to the detriment of the mission of advancement and allocation.

In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?  I never met Jon Postel but from what I've heard about him, I suspect he would frown on some of the current policies regarding needs.  My comments below and others I have made are intended to try to bring some balance into the discussion and my hope is that some day in the near future that will happen.  I certainly don't desire there be no rules at all but the very loose rules followed by Jon Postel worked pretty well advancing the Internet.  I think we could loosen the current policies like has been done in other regions and it would have a positive outcome.  My two cents.

Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
www.eclipse-networks.com<http://www.eclipse-networks.com/>
770.656.1460<tel:770.656.1460> - Cell
770.399.9099<tel:770.399.9099>- Office

? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
                     Conquering Complex Networks?

-----Original Message-----
From: Jo Rhett [mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com<mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com>]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 12:17 AM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

On Oct 27, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
> If in the spirit of trying to prevent fraud non-fraudulent requests get rejected, then Arin's mission stops being fulfilled.  I think it is important to make sure the mission is respected first and stopping fraud second or third or fifth or whatever.  We could stop all fraud by stopping all allocations but of course that makes no sense.  I would also point out that even when fraud happens Arin's Mission is still being fulfilled.

I completely disagree. There are dozens if not hundreds of people with non-fraudulent requests who get denied for insufficient justification. That is ARIN doing their job successfully in my mind. If widespread fraud occurs and ARIN does not take action, then I feel strongly that ARIN would not be doing their job.

> Of course maybe if the needs tests were loosened fraud would be significantly reduced as there would be no need to submit fraudulent requests.

Do you mean that if it were permissible to walk away with someone else?s belongings, then theft would no longer occur? Your statement is true without making any sense at all.

> I'm sure an org willing to submit a fraudulent request would tell you that they do have a need but they may not happen to meet the current arbitrary (and they are arbitrary) policy.

I disagree completely. ARIN?s role is to satisfy needs-based requests. Exercising judgement of whether a need is realistic is doing their job.

The only thing arbitrary here is your desire for there to be no rules at all. Deeply amusing, but not helpful for realistic policy.

--
Jo Rhett
+1 (415) 999-1798<tel:%2B1%20%28415%29%20999-1798>
Skype: jorhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.

_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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/20141215/448fe112/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1468 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141215/448fe112/attachment.jpg>

From owen at delong.com  Mon Dec 15 21:07:37 2014
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 18:07:37 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A51FB37@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28015F4C1298@MAIL1.polartel.local >
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A51F3A8@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<9C0E5E36-4FE6-4C66-BEBB-78BF5D9D98B9@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A51FB37@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <DDD0F9EE-C521-4A3F-8C82-C4CDBA27C65E@delong.com>

My point is that even before that discussion, there was and always has been needs testing for IPv6.

Your claim that what they were advocating for is something new, as if IPv6 wasn't already subject to needs testing is specious.

As such, I'm not sure what would cause you to want to scream.

Owen

> On Dec 15, 2014, at 14:21 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
> 
> No, my request for a IPv6 /32 was fulfilled by ARIN.  My IPv6 comment below was concerning discussion of a policy proposal for a past proposal.
>  
> Steven Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099- Office
>  
> <image001.jpg>? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>         Conquering Complex Networks?
>  
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] 
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 5:14 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: Kevin Kargel; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>  
> We have always had and still do have needs testing on all IPv6 allocations and assignments.
>  
> Do you know anyone who is having trouble getting the IPv6 space that they need?
>  
> Owen
>  
> On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:49 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com <mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
>  
> I saw folks in this Community when discussing a policy proposal earlier this year ? advocating for needs testing on all IPv6 allocations. I wanted to scream when I read it!  
>  
> As far as the Internet being different today, ARINs Mission doesn?t go out the window because of Internet changes.
>  
> Steven Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099- Office
>  
> <image001.jpg>? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>         Conquering Complex Networks?
>  
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>] On Behalf Of Kevin Kargel
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 1:12 PM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>  
>  
> The internet is a different place now and things change and evolve over time.  If a modern day entrepreneur needed IP space they would have little or no problem finding all the IPv6 space they need at little or no cost and with virtually no trouble. 
> When Jobs and Wozniak were starting up IPV4 was a different animal.
> Kevin
>  
>  
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 10:16 AM
> To: Bill Darte
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>  
> By that definition, I wonder if Jobs and Wozniak needed IP resources today for their garage - could they get them?  Whether you like what they did or not they certainly have advanced the Internet.  And if John and Sue are working in their garage today and need a /24 or a /22 from ARIN to further the Internet, can they get them?  With today?s policies ? probably not as they might not have a business plan yet, or signed contract with contractors, or gotten their funding - or any other measure of need that is currently indoctrinated in policy.  What a shame! 
>  
>  
> Steven Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> www.eclipse-networks.com <http://www.eclipse-networks.com/>
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099- Office
>  
> <image001.jpg>? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>         Conquering Complex Networks?
>  
> From: Bill Darte [mailto:billdarte at gmail.com <mailto:billdarte at gmail.com>] 
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 6:10 AM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: Jo Rhett; arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>  
> Steven Ryerse said: 
> In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?
>  
> The community through ARIN is ensuring that the distribution of v4 IP addresses are according to its policies which have been and should continue to be needs-based..IMO.  They are not 'caught up' in the sense that they cannot proceed...ndeed, they are doing the precise business that policy and its mission calls for.  That some orgs that cannot meet the needs hurdle are denied...does not mean that others who truly have a need are not serviced.  Those with clear need advance the Internet and do so demonstrably...whereas those without a demonstrable need MAY advance the Internet as well, but its a greater risk to the community and one which the community has chosen to forgo.
>  
> Bill Darte
>  
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com <mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
> Though it has been a few months since I made those comments, I appreciate your feedback.  Your description of "walk away with someone else?s belongings" seems to indicate that somehow the use of the Internet and the IP addresses that make the use of the Internet possible, is owned by ARIN or this Community or maybe ARIN and this Community.
> 
> I find that line of thinking about as far as one can get from the spirit of Jon Postel and the way he went about advancing the Internet.  When I read the original Mission Statement for ARIN or even the current one, I don't see that "needs" are more important than the actual mission of advancement and allocation.  Good stewardship should be practiced but NOT to the detriment of the mission of advancement and allocation.
> 
> In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?  I never met Jon Postel but from what I've heard about him, I suspect he would frown on some of the current policies regarding needs.  My comments below and others I have made are intended to try to bring some balance into the discussion and my hope is that some day in the near future that will happen.  I certainly don't desire there be no rules at all but the very loose rules followed by Jon Postel worked pretty well advancing the Internet.  I think we could loosen the current policies like has been done in other regions and it would have a positive outcome.  My two cents.
> 
> Steven Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> www.eclipse-networks.com <http://www.eclipse-networks.com/>
> 770.656.1460 <tel:770.656.1460> - Cell
> 770.399.9099 <tel:770.399.9099>- Office
> 
> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>                      Conquering Complex Networks?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jo Rhett [mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com <mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com>]
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 12:17 AM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
> 
> On Oct 27, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com <mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
> > If in the spirit of trying to prevent fraud non-fraudulent requests get rejected, then Arin's mission stops being fulfilled.  I think it is important to make sure the mission is respected first and stopping fraud second or third or fifth or whatever.  We could stop all fraud by stopping all allocations but of course that makes no sense.  I would also point out that even when fraud happens Arin's Mission is still being fulfilled.
> 
> I completely disagree. There are dozens if not hundreds of people with non-fraudulent requests who get denied for insufficient justification. That is ARIN doing their job successfully in my mind. If widespread fraud occurs and ARIN does not take action, then I feel strongly that ARIN would not be doing their job.
> 
> > Of course maybe if the needs tests were loosened fraud would be significantly reduced as there would be no need to submit fraudulent requests.
> 
> Do you mean that if it were permissible to walk away with someone else?s belongings, then theft would no longer occur? Your statement is true without making any sense at all.
> 
> > I'm sure an org willing to submit a fraudulent request would tell you that they do have a need but they may not happen to meet the current arbitrary (and they are arbitrary) policy.
> 
> I disagree completely. ARIN?s role is to satisfy needs-based requests. Exercising judgement of whether a need is realistic is doing their job.
> 
> The only thing arbitrary here is your desire for there to be no rules at all. Deeply amusing, but not helpful for realistic policy.
> 
> --
> Jo Rhett
> +1 (415) 999-1798 <tel:%2B1%20%28415%29%20999-1798>
> Skype: jorhett
> Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
> Please contact info at arin.net <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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/20141215/d7f3cb89/attachment.htm>

From ppml at rs.seastrom.com  Tue Dec 16 07:01:05 2014
From: ppml at rs.seastrom.com (Rob Seastrom)
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 07:01:05 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] spam originating from IANA special-use blocks.
In-Reply-To: <CACD4CA0-2690-4AD9-B97E-1C471117E191@netconsonance.com> (Jo
	Rhett's message of "Sun, 14 Dec 2014 21:06:51 -0800")
References: <CA81F043-19F1-455F-86E1-7359A8782838@netconsonance.com>
	<86iohdivcg.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>
	<CACD4CA0-2690-4AD9-B97E-1C471117E191@netconsonance.com>
Message-ID: <86iohbztvi.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>


Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> writes:

> On Dec 14, 2014, at 4:56 PM, Rob Seastrom <ppml at rs.seastrom.com> wrote:
>> Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> writes:
>> 
>>> I am starting to see widespread spam from IANA special-use
>>> blocks. Is it necessary for use to change policy for these blocks to
>>> be delegated appropriately with specific contact information, or is
>>> this something that ARIN can do on its own without a policy change?
>> 
>> It is already documented; you can look up the specific IPv4 associated
>> with the 6to4 IPv6 address you got the spam from.
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6to4#Address_block_allocation
>
> I think that this block should be commented as such for clarity when someone does a whois lookup.

What specific language would you recommend?  Just for this block or
can you identify some other, similarly situated, blocks?

If you could elucidate your thoughts and submit via the ACSP, that
would be appreciated.  https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/

Thanks!

-r



From mueller at syr.edu  Tue Dec 16 08:04:33 2014
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 13:04:33 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
In-Reply-To: <548F364C.9010102@athompso.net>
References: <91f996151ef44b03b2179e253c0af1db@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu><544733
	1D.9040009@ipinc.net><CAMDXq5MSG6jEdMWSyAfE340_+gx=WmQUSuxu1XvJuV19RzTdGQ@	m
	ail.gmail.com><4cbf6e7c109641259f86835fc5435cce@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu><544
	EC27A.5040901@ipinc.net><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016598325E@ENI-MAI
	L.eclipse-networks.com><99F6C7BF-E856-45D1-8D65-3874824DE0D8@netconsonance.
	com><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A5102BE@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<DEB3C120-A8FF-4D7A-919F-B8D23B364BFB@corp.arin.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A51F2D6@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<548F364C.9010102@athompso.net>
Message-ID: <42746980eb574c8f81f2c5e8d9864e63@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>

Can we PLEASE change the header on this thread?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
> On Behalf Of Adam Thompson
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 2:28 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse; John Curran
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
> 
> On 14-12-15 12:34 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> > I would point out that very clearly, anyone who wanted a /24 got one from
> Jon, just by requesting one.  I was one of the many folks who requested and
> received a /24. I also requested 4 consecutive /24's (Class C's) for a larger
> customer and received those as well.  I'm also reasonably sure that if I had
> requested a /8 (Class A) - I would not have gotten one - but I would not have
> gotten zero resources.
> >
> > The first word in item #1 below is Fair.  I agree we need balance and as I
> think you know by now I strongly do not think current policy is FAIR at the
> small end. When big org requests big block they either get a big block or a
> smaller block.  When medium org requests medium block they either get
> medium block or they get smaller block. When small org requests small block
> they either get small block or NO BLOCK.  This is inherently UNFAIR in my
> opinion.  I see no balance when a small org is discriminated against because
> they are small and have limited means. Thus Dave and Sue in their garage
> without the proverbial business plan or whatever to prove their need are
> shut out - and that is against ARINs Mission.
> 
> Adding my $0.02, and to some extent probably setting up a straw-man
> argument:
> 
> While I agree that *some* needs-based testing seems reasonable even for a
> /24, I feel the barrier should be minimal - i.e. prove that a legal entity exists
> (including a Legal Person, which can include an individual
> person) and has valid contact information.
> 
> In fact, if the needs test were removed altogether for /24s, I would expect
> this scenario to play out:
>      - all /24s get depleted rapidly
>      - ARIN no longer issues /24s, and continues to employ needs-based testing
> for larger blocks
>      - the commercial transfer market becomes the only place to get /24s
>      - a market value for /24 rapidly is established and more-or-less settles
>      - the "Joe & Sue in a garage" client now has two choices:
>          a) buy a portable /24 from a transfer market and register it with ARIN, if
> they have the resources to do so, or
>          b) accept (and/or negotiate) whatever their ISP gives them, if they do
> not.
> 
> This scenario could - potentially - ease ARIN's workload noticeably in the
> very-small end of the spectrum, while allowing the free market to control
> whether a new entrant gets PI space or not.
> 
> This works analogously to the way the real-estate market works: if you can't
> afford commercial space, you start in your garage or basement, and you
> move out once you can afford commercial real estate.  If you can afford a
> storefront retail location, go ahead and pay for it - whether you ever open up
> to the public or not, whether you use it or not.
> If you can't afford a tiny PI allocation, use whatever your ISP gives you.  If you
> can, go ahead and pay for it - whether you use it or not.
> 
> 
> To rebut in advance the usual bogeyman of "but, speculators!":
> counter-intuitively, speculators are not a bad thing.  (See
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defending_the_Undefendable for an accessible
> analysis of how speculators are necessary in a Capitalist
> system.)
> Is the company that owns the shopping mall a "speculator"?  What about the
> REITs, developers and other types of companies that buy up land and then
> sell it to individuals?  The function of a "speculator" is to help smooth out
> price fluctuations.  I have no interest whatsoever in seeing a "spot" market
> for PI space.
> 
> 
> In short, I would be willing to support removing needs-based testing for /24s.
> It would harm people like myself, who run an entire ASN off a /24, but at the
> same time would benefit the most typical sort of entity (also like myself ;-)
> who needs a tiny PI block: multi-homed organizations who need redundancy
> but can't otherwise meet the utilization threshold.  Their numbers are
> increasing all the time, and are reflective of small- and medium-business
> numbers overall in North America, which in turn (according to multiple gov t
> and academic sources) are what drives growth in North America.  I don't
> have any idea what the politico-economic situation is like in the Caribbean,
> so don't make any claims about that.
> 
> --
> -Adam Thompson
>   athompso at athompso.net
>   Cell: +1 204 291-7950
>   Fax: +1 204 489-6515
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public
> Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage 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 Dec 16 13:10:58 2014
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 18:10:58 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Use
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A5253D8@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

My experience was that I applied to ARIN for a /32 IPv6 block, a /22 IPv4 block (the minimum at the time), and an ASN number.  The online application asked me some questions which I answered.  Once it was processed I was notified that the IPv6 block and the ASN number were allocated to me, and the IPv4 block allocation was denied.  This was about 3 years ago and at the time I thought the questions I was asked were reasonable.  I don?t recall having to provide anything else except maybe a bill from my upstream provider.

I don?t have an issue with asking an applicant some basic questions but I have a strong issue with using the answers to those questions to deny an applicant the minimum block size.  Regardless of the original intent, the effect is the haves keeping the have nots from getting resources and this falls squarely on small organizations.  My opinion.

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

From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 9:08 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Kevin Kargel; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

My point is that even before that discussion, there was and always has been needs testing for IPv6.

Your claim that what they were advocating for is something new, as if IPv6 wasn't already subject to needs testing is specious.

As such, I'm not sure what would cause you to want to scream.

Owen

On Dec 15, 2014, at 14:21 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:

No, my request for a IPv6 /32 was fulfilled by ARIN.  My IPv6 comment below was concerning discussion of a policy proposal for a past proposal.

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

<image001.jpg>? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
        Conquering Complex Networks?

From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 5:14 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Kevin Kargel; arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

We have always had and still do have needs testing on all IPv6 allocations and assignments.

Do you know anyone who is having trouble getting the IPv6 space that they need?

Owen

On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:49 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:

I saw folks in this Community when discussing a policy proposal earlier this year ? advocating for needs testing on all IPv6 allocations. I wanted to scream when I read it!

As far as the Internet being different today, ARINs Mission doesn?t go out the window because of Internet changes.

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

<image001.jpg>? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
        Conquering Complex Networks?

From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Kargel
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 1:12 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use


The internet is a different place now and things change and evolve over time.  If a modern day entrepreneur needed IP space they would have little or no problem finding all the IPv6 space they need at little or no cost and with virtually no trouble.
When Jobs and Wozniak were starting up IPV4 was a different animal.
Kevin


From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 10:16 AM
To: Bill Darte
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

By that definition, I wonder if Jobs and Wozniak needed IP resources today for their garage - could they get them?  Whether you like what they did or not they certainly have advanced the Internet.  And if John and Sue are working in their garage today and need a /24 or a /22 from ARIN to further the Internet, can they get them?  With today?s policies ? probably not as they might not have a business plan yet, or signed contract with contractors, or gotten their funding - or any other measure of need that is currently indoctrinated in policy.  What a shame!


Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
www.eclipse-networks.com<http://www.eclipse-networks.com/>
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office

<image001.jpg>? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
        Conquering Complex Networks?

From: Bill Darte [mailto:billdarte at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 6:10 AM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Jo Rhett; arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

Steven Ryerse said:
In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?

The community through ARIN is ensuring that the distribution of v4 IP addresses are according to its policies which have been and should continue to be needs-based..IMO.  They are not 'caught up' in the sense that they cannot proceed...ndeed, they are doing the precise business that policy and its mission calls for.  That some orgs that cannot meet the needs hurdle are denied...does not mean that others who truly have a need are not serviced.  Those with clear need advance the Internet and do so demonstrably...whereas those without a demonstrable need MAY advance the Internet as well, but its a greater risk to the community and one which the community has chosen to forgo.

Bill Darte

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
Though it has been a few months since I made those comments, I appreciate your feedback.  Your description of "walk away with someone else?s belongings" seems to indicate that somehow the use of the Internet and the IP addresses that make the use of the Internet possible, is owned by ARIN or this Community or maybe ARIN and this Community.

I find that line of thinking about as far as one can get from the spirit of Jon Postel and the way he went about advancing the Internet.  When I read the original Mission Statement for ARIN or even the current one, I don't see that "needs" are more important than the actual mission of advancement and allocation.  Good stewardship should be practiced but NOT to the detriment of the mission of advancement and allocation.

In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?  I never met Jon Postel but from what I've heard about him, I suspect he would frown on some of the current policies regarding needs.  My comments below and others I have made are intended to try to bring some balance into the discussion and my hope is that some day in the near future that will happen.  I certainly don't desire there be no rules at all but the very loose rules followed by Jon Postel worked pretty well advancing the Internet.  I think we could loosen the current policies like has been done in other regions and it would have a positive outcome.  My two cents.

Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
www.eclipse-networks.com<http://www.eclipse-networks.com/>
770.656.1460<tel:770.656.1460> - Cell
770.399.9099<tel:770.399.9099>- Office

? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
                     Conquering Complex Networks?

-----Original Message-----
From: Jo Rhett [mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com<mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com>]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 12:17 AM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

On Oct 27, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
> If in the spirit of trying to prevent fraud non-fraudulent requests get rejected, then Arin's mission stops being fulfilled.  I think it is important to make sure the mission is respected first and stopping fraud second or third or fifth or whatever.  We could stop all fraud by stopping all allocations but of course that makes no sense.  I would also point out that even when fraud happens Arin's Mission is still being fulfilled.

I completely disagree. There are dozens if not hundreds of people with non-fraudulent requests who get denied for insufficient justification. That is ARIN doing their job successfully in my mind. If widespread fraud occurs and ARIN does not take action, then I feel strongly that ARIN would not be doing their job.

> Of course maybe if the needs tests were loosened fraud would be significantly reduced as there would be no need to submit fraudulent requests.

Do you mean that if it were permissible to walk away with someone else?s belongings, then theft would no longer occur? Your statement is true without making any sense at all.

> I'm sure an org willing to submit a fraudulent request would tell you that they do have a need but they may not happen to meet the current arbitrary (and they are arbitrary) policy.

I disagree completely. ARIN?s role is to satisfy needs-based requests. Exercising judgement of whether a need is realistic is doing their job.

The only thing arbitrary here is your desire for there to be no rules at all. Deeply amusing, but not helpful for realistic policy.

--
Jo Rhett
+1 (415) 999-1798<tel:%2B1%20%28415%29%20999-1798>
Skype: jorhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.

_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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/20141216/ec678f36/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/20141216/ec678f36/attachment.jpg>

From owen at delong.com  Tue Dec 16 15:13:37 2014
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:13:37 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Use
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A5253D8@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A5253D8@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <286B25E7-844E-4324-9408-8E179C375A31@delong.com>

Then your issue is with how needs basis was being applied to IPv4 3 years ago (and perhaps you also have issues with how it is currently being applied), rather than needs basis in general.

Thus, your continued railing against all needs testing distracts from rather than enabling work towards an improvement to IPv4 needs basis that might resolve your issue. Arguing to eliminate needs testing creates a binary argument where those of us who believe needs testing is essential to good stewardship vs. those who want to eliminate it altogether.

On the other hand, working towards a relaxed set of needs tests that meet the needs of more of the community is something I think most of the community would get behind. Previous experience has shown this to be generally true.

Owen

> On Dec 16, 2014, at 10:10 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
> 
> My experience was that I applied to ARIN for a /32 IPv6 block, a /22 IPv4 block (the minimum at the time), and an ASN number.  The online application asked me some questions which I answered.  Once it was processed I was notified that the IPv6 block and the ASN number were allocated to me, and the IPv4 block allocation was denied.  This was about 3 years ago and at the time I thought the questions I was asked were reasonable.  I don?t recall having to provide anything else except maybe a bill from my upstream provider. 
>  
> I don?t have an issue with asking an applicant some basic questions but I have a strong issue with using the answers to those questions to deny an applicant the minimum block size.  Regardless of the original intent, the effect is the haves keeping the have nots from getting resources and this falls squarely on small organizations.  My opinion. 
>  
> 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
>  
> <image001.jpg>? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>         Conquering Complex Networks?
>  
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>] 
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 9:08 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: Kevin Kargel; arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>  
> My point is that even before that discussion, there was and always has been needs testing for IPv6.
>  
> Your claim that what they were advocating for is something new, as if IPv6 wasn't already subject to needs testing is specious.
>  
> As such, I'm not sure what would cause you to want to scream.
>  
> Owen
>  
> On Dec 15, 2014, at 14:21 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com <mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
>  
> No, my request for a IPv6 /32 was fulfilled by ARIN.  My IPv6 comment below was concerning discussion of a policy proposal for a past proposal.
>  
> Steven Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099- Office
>  
> <image001.jpg>? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>         Conquering Complex Networks?
>  
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>] 
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 5:14 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: Kevin Kargel; arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>  
> We have always had and still do have needs testing on all IPv6 allocations and assignments.
>  
> Do you know anyone who is having trouble getting the IPv6 space that they need?
>  
> Owen
>  
> On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:49 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com <mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
>  
> I saw folks in this Community when discussing a policy proposal earlier this year ? advocating for needs testing on all IPv6 allocations. I wanted to scream when I read it!  
>  
> As far as the Internet being different today, ARINs Mission doesn?t go out the window because of Internet changes.
>  
> Steven Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099- Office
>  
> <image001.jpg>? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>         Conquering Complex Networks?
>  
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>] On Behalf Of Kevin Kargel
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 1:12 PM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>  
>  
> The internet is a different place now and things change and evolve over time.  If a modern day entrepreneur needed IP space they would have little or no problem finding all the IPv6 space they need at little or no cost and with virtually no trouble. 
> When Jobs and Wozniak were starting up IPV4 was a different animal.
> Kevin
>  
>  
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 10:16 AM
> To: Bill Darte
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>  
> By that definition, I wonder if Jobs and Wozniak needed IP resources today for their garage - could they get them?  Whether you like what they did or not they certainly have advanced the Internet.  And if John and Sue are working in their garage today and need a /24 or a /22 from ARIN to further the Internet, can they get them?  With today?s policies ? probably not as they might not have a business plan yet, or signed contract with contractors, or gotten their funding - or any other measure of need that is currently indoctrinated in policy.  What a shame! 
>  
>  
> Steven Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> www.eclipse-networks.com <http://www.eclipse-networks.com/>
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099- Office
>  
> <image001.jpg>? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>         Conquering Complex Networks?
>  
> From: Bill Darte [mailto:billdarte at gmail.com <mailto:billdarte at gmail.com>] 
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 6:10 AM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: Jo Rhett; arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>  
> Steven Ryerse said: 
> In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?
>  
> The community through ARIN is ensuring that the distribution of v4 IP addresses are according to its policies which have been and should continue to be needs-based..IMO.  They are not 'caught up' in the sense that they cannot proceed...ndeed, they are doing the precise business that policy and its mission calls for.  That some orgs that cannot meet the needs hurdle are denied...does not mean that others who truly have a need are not serviced.  Those with clear need advance the Internet and do so demonstrably...whereas those without a demonstrable need MAY advance the Internet as well, but its a greater risk to the community and one which the community has chosen to forgo.
>  
> Bill Darte
>  
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com <mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
> Though it has been a few months since I made those comments, I appreciate your feedback.  Your description of "walk away with someone else?s belongings" seems to indicate that somehow the use of the Internet and the IP addresses that make the use of the Internet possible, is owned by ARIN or this Community or maybe ARIN and this Community.
> 
> I find that line of thinking about as far as one can get from the spirit of Jon Postel and the way he went about advancing the Internet.  When I read the original Mission Statement for ARIN or even the current one, I don't see that "needs" are more important than the actual mission of advancement and allocation.  Good stewardship should be practiced but NOT to the detriment of the mission of advancement and allocation.
> 
> In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?  I never met Jon Postel but from what I've heard about him, I suspect he would frown on some of the current policies regarding needs.  My comments below and others I have made are intended to try to bring some balance into the discussion and my hope is that some day in the near future that will happen.  I certainly don't desire there be no rules at all but the very loose rules followed by Jon Postel worked pretty well advancing the Internet.  I think we could loosen the current policies like has been done in other regions and it would have a positive outcome.  My two cents.
> 
> Steven Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> www.eclipse-networks.com <http://www.eclipse-networks.com/>
> 770.656.1460 <tel:770.656.1460> - Cell
> 770.399.9099 <tel:770.399.9099>- Office
> 
> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>                      Conquering Complex Networks?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jo Rhett [mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com <mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com>]
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 12:17 AM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
> 
> On Oct 27, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com <mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
> > If in the spirit of trying to prevent fraud non-fraudulent requests get rejected, then Arin's mission stops being fulfilled.  I think it is important to make sure the mission is respected first and stopping fraud second or third or fifth or whatever.  We could stop all fraud by stopping all allocations but of course that makes no sense.  I would also point out that even when fraud happens Arin's Mission is still being fulfilled.
> 
> I completely disagree. There are dozens if not hundreds of people with non-fraudulent requests who get denied for insufficient justification. That is ARIN doing their job successfully in my mind. If widespread fraud occurs and ARIN does not take action, then I feel strongly that ARIN would not be doing their job.
> 
> > Of course maybe if the needs tests were loosened fraud would be significantly reduced as there would be no need to submit fraudulent requests.
> 
> Do you mean that if it were permissible to walk away with someone else?s belongings, then theft would no longer occur? Your statement is true without making any sense at all.
> 
> > I'm sure an org willing to submit a fraudulent request would tell you that they do have a need but they may not happen to meet the current arbitrary (and they are arbitrary) policy.
> 
> I disagree completely. ARIN?s role is to satisfy needs-based requests. Exercising judgement of whether a need is realistic is doing their job.
> 
> The only thing arbitrary here is your desire for there to be no rules at all. Deeply amusing, but not helpful for realistic policy.
> 
> --
> Jo Rhett
> +1 (415) 999-1798 <tel:%2B1%20%28415%29%20999-1798>
> Skype: jorhett
> Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
> Please contact info at arin.net <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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/20141216/839a0b6c/attachment.htm>

From info at arin.net  Tue Dec 16 16:49:57 2014
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 16:49:57 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-19: New MDN Allocation Based on
 Past Utilization - revised
Message-ID: <5490A905.4060808@arin.net>

Draft Policy ARIN-2014-19 has been revised. The text is below and can be 
found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_19.html

The third bullet was changed from:

"- a three month supply if there is an applicable one year utilization 
rate, specific to the use to be covered by the new MDN, on which to base 
a three month supply on as per 4.2."

to:

"- a 3-month supply of address space may be requested if the new MDN can 
show a demonstrated one-year utilization history."

The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) 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,

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


## * ##


Draft Policy ARIN-2014-19
New MDN Allocation Based on Past Utilization

Date: 16 December 2014

2014-19 New MDN Allocation based on Past Utilization
Problem Statement:
The previous MDN policy was too limiting in that a new MDN could only 
qualify under immediate need. This was extended by ARIN-2013-8 where the 
minimum allocation will now be assigned unless immediate need for more 
can be demonstrated.

Unfortunately, this policy did not go far enough. There may be some 
cases where there is a one year utilization history that is applicable 
to a new MDN. For example, imagine a network that is divided into four 
regions, each an MDN. Three of the four MDNs have been growing at a /20 
per year. The fourth MDN has been growing at a /19 per year, it is over 
80% utilized, and the region is too large. The region will be divided in 
half, which half of the current customers and their addresses to be 
migrated into a new MDN (Region 5). It is also anticipated that half of 
Region 4's growth will be shifted to Region 5. With Region 4 and Region 
5 each above 80%, both should qualify for subsequent allocations at half 
of what was Region 4's growth rate.

Policy statement:

replace section 4.5.4 created by 2013-8:

?Upon verification that the organization has shown evidence of 
deployment of the new discrete network site, the new network(s) shall be 
allocated the minimum allocation size under section 4.2.1.5 unless the 
organization can demonstrate additional need using the immediate need 
criteria (4.2.1.6).

with:

Upon verification that the organization has shown

evidence of deployment of the new discrete network site, the new 
network(s) shall be allocated one of the following:

- the minimum allocation size under section 4.2.1.5

- more than the minimum if the organization can demonstrate additional 
need using the immediate need criteria (4.2.1.6)

- a 3-month supply of address space may be requested if the new MDN can 
show a demonstrated one-year utilization history.

Timetable for implementation: Immediate


From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Tue Dec 16 21:40:41 2014
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 02:40:41 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

I would point out that I submitted proposal 2014-18 which would have removed needs testing only on the minimum sized allocations ? so yes I am trying to fix it at the low end.  I think the Needs testing needs to be scrapped altogether as was done in the Europe region in favor of right size testing but that isn?t the battle I?m trying to fight.

A more pointed example of what I find wrong with needs testing rather than right sizing allocations per the size of the org and their network would be this:

A group of folks who all have one or more .com domain name allocation(s) and are all running one or more web sites using those allocations on the Internet gets together to form a ?Community? to Advance the use of the Internet.  At a particular point in time the various opinions of the members of this community aggregate their then current opinions and Best Practices on how .com domains should be managed and allocated, and a set of .com domain allocation policies are formed.  Of course since the policies are essentially an aggregate of the opinions of the members of that community at that time - they are arbitrary - and hopefully but there is no guarantee, that there has been wisdom and fairness built into these policies.  As time goes on more opinions from this Community are aggregated and the .com domain policies are modified and hopefully improved but of course there is no guarantee of that since they are an aggregated arbitrary collection of hopefully best practice opinions formed into policies.   One day a very small org decides it is in their best interest to apply for an allocation for one domain name so they can have a web site.  They are willing to pay the fee for it and they check the registry database and find that abc123doreme.com has not been allocated to anyone - and so they apply to have it allocated to them.  Unfortunately for that small org, the policies have been modified over time and based on applying the then current policies (which are and always will be arbitrary), the request for that one unallocated domain name is rejected per current Policy.  Of course the effect of this rejected allocation request is that this small org can NOT bring up their web site using the denied domain name.  Even though it may or may not have been the intent of this .com domain ?Community? to shut out the small Org from using the Internet in the way they felt was in their best Interest, THE SMALL ORG HAS BEEN SHUT OUT BY THIS .COM ALLOCATION ?COMMUNITY? via policies)!  This small Org doesn?t think it is fair that the others got a .com allocation - and there is one available - and they still can?t get even ONE!  Many of these folks who now have one or many .com allocation(s) would not be able to get their existing .com allocation(s) today under the current .com allocation policies as currently defined by this .com allocation Community.  This small Org didn?t apply for many .com domain names ? they applied for the Minimum of one of them.  And of course they are correct ? the polices the .com allocation Community aggregated did in fact shut out this one small Org from bringing up their valued web site because they were denied the resources required to do so by the only official ?Community? in their region that can give them approval.  Worse yet other small Orgs continue to get denied by the current policies.  Instead of the Internet being Advanced by the Community?s Policies which of course was originally put in the Mission Statement so that everyone would know their Mission, application of the Policies has done the exact opposite and this small Org and others who have been denied have suffered.

I know that at least some Members of this ARIN region Community wish I would stop badgering this community about the unfairness of how policies are applied to small Orgs, but I will NEVER stop complaining as long as I can breathe and type, until the aggregate opinions of the ARIN community come together to right this wrong.

I tried to submit a simple policy change in an attempt to use the current system of policies to hopefully fix this.  I asked members of this community if they might have any changes to my proposed language to improve the proposed policy to try and fix this.  But in the end my policy proposal was voted down by the AC without even one email from the assigned Shepard(s) telling me a vote was even scheduled - and without checking to see if I might have any additional input for them to consider before they voted.  What a system!

Are there not any members of good will in the ARIN community who are willing to band together to finally fix this in a responsible way?  Community Members?  The Board? ARIN Management?  Anyone out there?

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

From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 3:14 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Kevin Kargel; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Use

Then your issue is with how needs basis was being applied to IPv4 3 years ago (and perhaps you also have issues with how it is currently being applied), rather than needs basis in general.

Thus, your continued railing against all needs testing distracts from rather than enabling work towards an improvement to IPv4 needs basis that might resolve your issue. Arguing to eliminate needs testing creates a binary argument where those of us who believe needs testing is essential to good stewardship vs. those who want to eliminate it altogether.

On the other hand, working towards a relaxed set of needs tests that meet the needs of more of the community is something I think most of the community would get behind. Previous experience has shown this to be generally true.

Owen

On Dec 16, 2014, at 10:10 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:

My experience was that I applied to ARIN for a /32 IPv6 block, a /22 IPv4 block (the minimum at the time), and an ASN number.  The online application asked me some questions which I answered.  Once it was processed I was notified that the IPv6 block and the ASN number were allocated to me, and the IPv4 block allocation was denied.  This was about 3 years ago and at the time I thought the questions I was asked were reasonable.  I don?t recall having to provide anything else except maybe a bill from my upstream provider.

I don?t have an issue with asking an applicant some basic questions but I have a strong issue with using the answers to those questions to deny an applicant the minimum block size.  Regardless of the original intent, the effect is the haves keeping the have nots from getting resources and this falls squarely on small organizations.  My opinion.

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

<image001.jpg>? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
        Conquering Complex Networks?

From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 9:08 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Kevin Kargel; arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

My point is that even before that discussion, there was and always has been needs testing for IPv6.

Your claim that what they were advocating for is something new, as if IPv6 wasn't already subject to needs testing is specious.

As such, I'm not sure what would cause you to want to scream.

Owen

On Dec 15, 2014, at 14:21 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:

No, my request for a IPv6 /32 was fulfilled by ARIN.  My IPv6 comment below was concerning discussion of a policy proposal for a past proposal.

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

<image001.jpg>? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
        Conquering Complex Networks?

From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 5:14 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Kevin Kargel; arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

We have always had and still do have needs testing on all IPv6 allocations and assignments.

Do you know anyone who is having trouble getting the IPv6 space that they need?

Owen

On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:49 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:

I saw folks in this Community when discussing a policy proposal earlier this year ? advocating for needs testing on all IPv6 allocations. I wanted to scream when I read it!

As far as the Internet being different today, ARINs Mission doesn?t go out the window because of Internet changes.

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

<image001.jpg>? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
        Conquering Complex Networks?

From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Kargel
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 1:12 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use


The internet is a different place now and things change and evolve over time.  If a modern day entrepreneur needed IP space they would have little or no problem finding all the IPv6 space they need at little or no cost and with virtually no trouble.
When Jobs and Wozniak were starting up IPV4 was a different animal.
Kevin


From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 10:16 AM
To: Bill Darte
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

By that definition, I wonder if Jobs and Wozniak needed IP resources today for their garage - could they get them?  Whether you like what they did or not they certainly have advanced the Internet.  And if John and Sue are working in their garage today and need a /24 or a /22 from ARIN to further the Internet, can they get them?  With today?s policies ? probably not as they might not have a business plan yet, or signed contract with contractors, or gotten their funding - or any other measure of need that is currently indoctrinated in policy.  What a shame!


Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
www.eclipse-networks.com<http://www.eclipse-networks.com/>
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office

<image001.jpg>? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
        Conquering Complex Networks?

From: Bill Darte [mailto:billdarte at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 6:10 AM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Jo Rhett; arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

Steven Ryerse said:
In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?

The community through ARIN is ensuring that the distribution of v4 IP addresses are according to its policies which have been and should continue to be needs-based..IMO.  They are not 'caught up' in the sense that they cannot proceed...ndeed, they are doing the precise business that policy and its mission calls for.  That some orgs that cannot meet the needs hurdle are denied...does not mean that others who truly have a need are not serviced.  Those with clear need advance the Internet and do so demonstrably...whereas those without a demonstrable need MAY advance the Internet as well, but its a greater risk to the community and one which the community has chosen to forgo.

Bill Darte

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
Though it has been a few months since I made those comments, I appreciate your feedback.  Your description of "walk away with someone else?s belongings" seems to indicate that somehow the use of the Internet and the IP addresses that make the use of the Internet possible, is owned by ARIN or this Community or maybe ARIN and this Community.

I find that line of thinking about as far as one can get from the spirit of Jon Postel and the way he went about advancing the Internet.  When I read the original Mission Statement for ARIN or even the current one, I don't see that "needs" are more important than the actual mission of advancement and allocation.  Good stewardship should be practiced but NOT to the detriment of the mission of advancement and allocation.

In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?  I never met Jon Postel but from what I've heard about him, I suspect he would frown on some of the current policies regarding needs.  My comments below and others I have made are intended to try to bring some balance into the discussion and my hope is that some day in the near future that will happen.  I certainly don't desire there be no rules at all but the very loose rules followed by Jon Postel worked pretty well advancing the Internet.  I think we could loosen the current policies like has been done in other regions and it would have a positive outcome.  My two cents.

Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
www.eclipse-networks.com<http://www.eclipse-networks.com/>
770.656.1460<tel:770.656.1460> - Cell
770.399.9099<tel:770.399.9099>- Office

? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
                     Conquering Complex Networks?

-----Original Message-----
From: Jo Rhett [mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com<mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com>]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 12:17 AM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

On Oct 27, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
> If in the spirit of trying to prevent fraud non-fraudulent requests get rejected, then Arin's mission stops being fulfilled.  I think it is important to make sure the mission is respected first and stopping fraud second or third or fifth or whatever.  We could stop all fraud by stopping all allocations but of course that makes no sense.  I would also point out that even when fraud happens Arin's Mission is still being fulfilled.

I completely disagree. There are dozens if not hundreds of people with non-fraudulent requests who get denied for insufficient justification. That is ARIN doing their job successfully in my mind. If widespread fraud occurs and ARIN does not take action, then I feel strongly that ARIN would not be doing their job.

> Of course maybe if the needs tests were loosened fraud would be significantly reduced as there would be no need to submit fraudulent requests.

Do you mean that if it were permissible to walk away with someone else?s belongings, then theft would no longer occur? Your statement is true without making any sense at all.

> I'm sure an org willing to submit a fraudulent request would tell you that they do have a need but they may not happen to meet the current arbitrary (and they are arbitrary) policy.

I disagree completely. ARIN?s role is to satisfy needs-based requests. Exercising judgement of whether a need is realistic is doing their job.

The only thing arbitrary here is your desire for there to be no rules at all. Deeply amusing, but not helpful for realistic policy.

--
Jo Rhett
+1 (415) 999-1798<tel:%2B1%20%28415%29%20999-1798>
Skype: jorhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.

_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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/20141217/683b5434/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/20141217/683b5434/attachment.jpg>

From tedm at ipinc.net  Wed Dec 17 13:08:41 2014
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 10:08:41 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Use
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A5253D8@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A5253D8@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <5491C6A9.4080403@ipinc.net>

Hi Steven,

   That was my experience like over a decade ago - except that I was not
applying for IPv6 just IPv4 - of course back in those days we didn't 
call it IPv4 we just called it IP - I called ARIN - talked to them - 
answered a few more questions the hostmaster had - and the No turned 
into a Yes.

   I can't get too excited about someone who submitted a webform, got 
denied, then said "oh well" and never pursued it any further.  Which is 
what your story here says what happened.  In a shortage market I would 
expect more of an effort from a requestor to obtain something than just 
clicking Submit on a webform.  At the very least, a phone call.

   Today if I had to do it over again and got a No, I'd probably be 
buying a plane ticket and visiting ARIN's offices.

   The reality is we are out of IPv4.  Assigning more of it isn't 
advancing the Internet.  Assigning IPv6 IS advancing the Internet. 
People can get IPv4 from their upstreams.  Yes it will cost and yes it 
will make it harder to renumber.  That is the price that you have to pay 
in a market with severe shortages.  That's why we pay $3-$4 a gallon for 
gasoline.

   If you did indeed do anything further then please elaborate - right 
now I can only judge by what you have said in your story - and it's just 
not very compelling.

Ted

On 12/16/2014 10:10 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> My experience was that I applied to ARIN for a /32 IPv6 block, a /22
> IPv4 block (the minimum at the time), and an ASN number. The online
> application asked me some questions which I answered. Once it was
> processed I was notified that the IPv6 block and the ASN number were
> allocated to me, and the IPv4 block allocation was denied. This was
> about 3 years ago and at the time I thought the questions I was asked
> were reasonable. I don?t recall having to provide anything else except
> maybe a bill from my upstream provider.
>
> I don?t have an issue with asking an applicant some basic questions but
> I have a strong issue with using the answers to those questions to deny
> an applicant the minimum block size. Regardless of the original intent,
> the effect is the haves keeping the have nots from getting resources and
> this falls squarely on small organizations. My opinion.
>
> /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: Eclipse Networks
> Logo_small.png?Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>
> ^Conquering Complex Networks ^? ^
>
> *From:*Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, December 15, 2014 9:08 PM
> *To:* Steven Ryerse
> *Cc:* Kevin Kargel; arin-ppml at arin.net
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>
> My point is that even before that discussion, there was and always has
> been needs testing for IPv6.
>
> Your claim that what they were advocating for is something new, as if
> IPv6 wasn't already subject to needs testing is specious.
>
> As such, I'm not sure what would cause you to want to scream.
>
> Owen
>
>     On Dec 15, 2014, at 14:21 , Steven Ryerse
>     <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com <mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>>
>     wrote:
>
>     No, my request for a IPv6 /32 was fulfilled by ARIN. My IPv6 comment
>     below was concerning discussion of a policy proposal for a past
>     proposal.
>
>     /Steven Ryerse/
>
>     /President/
>
>     /100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338/
>
>     /770.656.1460 - Cell/
>
>     /770.399.9099- Office/
>
>     <image001.jpg>?Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>
>     ^Conquering Complex Networks ^?
>
>     *From:*Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>     *Sent:*Monday, December 15, 2014 5:14 PM
>     *To:*Steven Ryerse
>     *Cc:*Kevin Kargel; arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
>     *Subject:*Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>
>     We have always had and still do have needs testing on all IPv6
>     allocations and assignments.
>
>     Do you know anyone who is having trouble getting the IPv6 space that
>     they need?
>
>     Owen
>
>         On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:49 , Steven Ryerse
>         <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com
>         <mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
>
>         I saw folks in this Community when discussing a policy proposal
>         earlier this year ? advocating for needs testing on all IPv6
>         allocations. I wanted to scream when I read it!
>
>         As far as the Internet being different today, ARINs Mission
>         doesn?t go out the window because of Internet changes.
>
>         /Steven Ryerse/
>
>         /President/
>
>         /100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338/
>
>         /770.656.1460 - Cell/
>
>         /770.399.9099- Office/
>
>         <image001.jpg>?Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>
>         ^Conquering Complex Networks ^?
>
>         *From:*arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
>         <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>[mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]*On
>         Behalf Of*Kevin Kargel
>         *Sent:*Monday, December 15, 2014 1:12 PM
>         *To:*arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
>         *Subject:*[arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>
>         The internet is a different place now and things change and
>         evolve over time. If a modern day entrepreneur needed IP space
>         they would have little or no problem finding all the IPv6 space
>         they need at little or no cost and with virtually no trouble.
>
>         When Jobs and Wozniak were starting up IPV4 was a different animal.
>
>         Kevin
>
>         *From:*arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
>         <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>[mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]*On
>         Behalf Of*Steven Ryerse
>         *Sent:*Monday, December 15, 2014 10:16 AM
>         *To:*Bill Darte
>         *Cc:*arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
>         *Subject:*Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>
>         By that definition, I wonder if Jobs and Wozniak needed IP
>         resources today for their garage - could they get them? Whether
>         you like what they did or not they certainly have advanced the
>         Internet. And if John and Sue are working in their garage today
>         and need a /24 or a /22 from ARIN to further the Internet, can
>         they get them? With today?s policies ? probably not as they
>         might not have a business plan yet, or signed contract with
>         contractors, or gotten their funding - or any other measure of
>         need that is currently indoctrinated in policy. What a shame!
>
>         //
>
>         /Steven Ryerse/
>
>         /President/
>
>         /100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338/
>
>         /www.eclipse-networks.com <http://www.eclipse-networks.com/>/
>
>         /770.656.1460 - Cell/
>
>         /770.399.9099- Office/
>
>         <image001.jpg>?Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>
>         ^Conquering Complex Networks ^?
>
>         *From:*Bill Darte [mailto:billdarte at gmail.com]
>         *Sent:*Monday, December 15, 2014 6:10 AM
>         *To:*Steven Ryerse
>         *Cc:*Jo Rhett;arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
>         *Subject:*Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>
>         Steven Ryerse said:
>
>         In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure
>         needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the
>         real mission of advancing the Internet. Regardless of your
>         personal definition of need, why is some org who doesn't have a
>         need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from getting
>         resources? How does that advance the Internet?
>
>         The community through ARIN is ensuring that the distribution of
>         v4 IP addresses are according to its policies which have been
>         and should continue to be needs-based..IMO. They are not 'caught
>         up' in the sense that they cannot proceed...ndeed, they are
>         doing the precise business that policy and its mission calls
>         for. That some orgs that cannot meet the needs hurdle are
>         denied...does not mean that others who truly have a need are not
>         serviced. Those with clear need advance the Internet and do so
>         demonstrably...whereas those without a demonstrable need MAY
>         advance the Internet as well, but its a greater risk to the
>         community and one which the community has chosen to forgo.
>
>         Bill Darte
>
>         On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Steven Ryerse
>         <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com
>         <mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
>
>             Though it has been a few months since I made those comments,
>             I appreciate your feedback. Your description of "walk away
>             with someone else?s belongings" seems to indicate that
>             somehow the use of the Internet and the IP addresses that
>             make the use of the Internet possible, is owned by ARIN or
>             this Community or maybe ARIN and this Community.
>
>             I find that line of thinking about as far as one can get
>             from the spirit of Jon Postel and the way he went about
>             advancing the Internet. When I read the original Mission
>             Statement for ARIN or even the current one, I don't see that
>             "needs" are more important than the actual mission of
>             advancement and allocation. Good stewardship should be
>             practiced but NOT to the detriment of the mission of
>             advancement and allocation.
>
>             In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure
>             needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of
>             the real mission of advancing the Internet. Regardless of
>             your personal definition of need, why is some org who
>             doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now
>             precluded from getting resources? How does that advance the
>             Internet? I never met Jon Postel but from what I've heard
>             about him, I suspect he would frown on some of the current
>             policies regarding needs. My comments below and others I
>             have made are intended to try to bring some balance into the
>             discussion and my hope is that some day in the near future
>             that will happen. I certainly don't desire there be no rules
>             at all but the very loose rules followed by Jon Postel
>             worked pretty well advancing the Internet. I think we could
>             loosen the current policies like has been done in other
>             regions and it would have a positive outcome. My two cents.
>
>             Steven Ryerse
>             President
>             100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
>             www.eclipse-networks.com <http://www.eclipse-networks.com/>
>             770.656.1460 <tel:770.656.1460> - Cell
>             770.399.9099 <tel:770.399.9099>- Office
>
>             ?Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>             Conquering Complex Networks?
>
>             -----Original Message-----
>             From: Jo Rhett [mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com
>             <mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com>]
>             Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 12:17 AM
>             To: Steven Ryerse
>             Cc:arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
>             Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>
>             On Oct 27, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Steven Ryerse
>             <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com
>             <mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
>              > If in the spirit of trying to prevent fraud
>             non-fraudulent requests get rejected, then Arin's mission
>             stops being fulfilled. I think it is important to make sure
>             the mission is respected first and stopping fraud second or
>             third or fifth or whatever. We could stop all fraud by
>             stopping all allocations but of course that makes no sense.
>             I would also point out that even when fraud happens Arin's
>             Mission is still being fulfilled.
>
>             I completely disagree. There are dozens if not hundreds of
>             people with non-fraudulent requests who get denied for
>             insufficient justification. That is ARIN doing their job
>             successfully in my mind. If widespread fraud occurs and ARIN
>             does not take action, then I feel strongly that ARIN would
>             not be doing their job.
>
>              > Of course maybe if the needs tests were loosened fraud
>             would be significantly reduced as there would be no need to
>             submit fraudulent requests.
>
>             Do you mean that if it were permissible to walk away with
>             someone else?s belongings, then theft would no longer occur?
>             Your statement is true without making any sense at all.
>
>              > I'm sure an org willing to submit a fraudulent request
>             would tell you that they do have a need but they may not
>             happen to meet the current arbitrary (and they are
>             arbitrary) policy.
>
>             I disagree completely. ARIN?s role is to satisfy needs-based
>             requests. Exercising judgement of whether a need is
>             realistic is doing their job.
>
>             The only thing arbitrary here is your desire for there to be
>             no rules at all. Deeply amusing, but not helpful for
>             realistic policy.
>
>             --
>             Jo Rhett
>             +1 (415) 999-1798 <tel:%2B1%20%28415%29%20999-1798>
>             Skype: jorhett
>             Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and
>             internet projects.
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             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 contactinfo at arin.net <mailto: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
>         <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
>         Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>         http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>         Please contactinfo at arin.net <mailto: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 tedm at ipinc.net  Wed Dec 17 13:29:55 2014
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 10:29:55 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <5491CBA3.8010202@ipinc.net>

Hi Steven,

  A group of folks who all want to make a little money selling gravel to 
road builders band together and form a "community" to advance the use of 
rock quarries.  They form a set of policies.  In the beginning the 
policies are simple and people dig rock quarries willy nilly.  Over time 
as some people quit doing it and go on to other things, leaving big 
holes behind that fill up with water and create a hazard, the community 
changes it's rules to add a lot more policies that require filling the 
holes back in, posting a bond to make sure the holes get filled back in, 
etc.

Fast forward 20 years and a small guy who owns property decides he wants 
to make a little money digging gravel out of the hillside on his own 
property.  He applies for a permit and is denied because he cannot post 
a bond.  Other small operators are also denied.  This runs completely 
counter to the original intent of the gravel quarry community.

So, what do you propose?  Eliminate the requirement to post a large bond 
insuring the quarry holes get filled back in?  That will allow small 
operators into the market, yes - but it will go back to creating more 
abandoned quarries that fill up with water and are a hazard.

Sometimes markets do change to where small operators are no longer able 
to start operations in a market.  This is part of a capitalistic market 
and how it operates.  Remember, the approach of capitalism is to 
structure things so the consumer is king.  In the quarry example the 
consumer gets both rock and gravel from large operators, and they get 
quarries that have holes filled in.  The consumer wants both things and 
they get both things.  It sucks to be the newcomer provider but the 
market in a capitalistic society isn't structured to help the providers, 
it's structured to help the consumer.

The North American region is mostly capitalistic and that is why ARIN's 
policies reflect that approach.  Europe is socialist and they want to 
control how people think and do things in their society by Big Brother 
which is why their policies are structured differently.  In Europe they 
probably would use public tax money to go follow around after all the 
abandoned quarry operators and clean up after them.  Thus in effect 
subsidizing businesses.  Why do you think their economy is so bad?

See a need fill a need.  Remember what movie that came from?  It is 
better for the consumer if the small guy with the land who wants to sell 
rock is forced into a different market - by being forced to sell his 
land and use the money to invest in a business venture that produces 
something the market lacks.  Maybe he uses the sale money to buy a 
cement kiln and then buys rock from the existing quarries and creates 
concrete with it and sells the concrete.

Ted

On 12/16/2014 6:40 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> I would point out that I submitted proposal 2014-18 which would have
> removed needs testing only on the minimum sized allocations ? so yes I
> am trying to fix it at the low end. I think the Needs testing needs to
> be scrapped altogether as was done in the Europe region in favor of
> right size testing but that isn?t the battle I?m trying to fight.
>
> A more pointed example of what I find wrong with needs testing rather
> than right sizing allocations per the size of the org and their network
> would be this:
>
> A group of folks who all have one or more .com domain name allocation(s)
> and are all running one or more web sites using those allocations on the
> Internet gets together to form a ?Community? to Advance the use of the
> Internet. At a particular point in time the various opinions of the
> members of this community aggregate their then current opinions and Best
> Practices on how .com domains should be managed and allocated, and a set
> of .com domain allocation policies are formed. Of course since the
> policies are essentially an aggregate of the opinions of the members of
> that community at that time - they are arbitrary - and hopefully but
> there is no guarantee, that there has been wisdom and fairness built
> into these policies. As time goes on more opinions from this Community
> are aggregated and the .com domain policies are modified and hopefully
> improved but of course there is no guarantee of that since they are an
> aggregated arbitrary collection of hopefully best practice opinions
> formed into policies. One day a very small org decides it is in their
> best interest to apply for an allocation for one domain name so they can
> have a web site. They are willing to pay the fee for it and they check
> the registry database and find that abc123doreme.com has not been
> allocated to anyone - and so they apply to have it allocated to them.
> Unfortunately for that small org, the policies have been modified over
> time and based on applying the then current policies (which are and
> always will be arbitrary), the request for that one unallocated domain
> name is rejected per current Policy. Of course the effect of this
> rejected allocation request is that this small org can NOT bring up
> their web site using the denied domain name. Even though it may or may
> not have been the intent of this .com domain ?Community? to shut out the
> small Org from using the Internet in the way they felt was in their best
> Interest, THE SMALL ORG HAS BEEN SHUT OUT BY THIS .COM ALLOCATION
> ?COMMUNITY? via policies)! This small Org doesn?t think it is fair that
> the others got a .com allocation - and there is one available - and they
> still can?t get even ONE! Many of these folks who now have one or many
> .com allocation(s) would not be able to get their existing .com
> allocation(s) today under the current .com allocation policies as
> currently defined by this .com allocation Community. This small Org
> didn?t apply for many .com domain names ? they applied for the Minimum
> of one of them. And of course they are correct ? the polices the .com
> allocation Community aggregated did in fact shut out this one small Org
> from bringing up their valued web site because they were denied the
> resources required to do so by the only official ?Community? in their
> region that can give them approval. Worse yet other small Orgs continue
> to get denied by the current policies. Instead of the Internet being
> Advanced by the Community?s Policies which of course was originally put
> in the Mission Statement so that everyone would know their Mission,
> application of the Policies has done the exact opposite and this small
> Org and others who have been denied have suffered.
>
> I know that at least some Members of this ARIN region Community wish I
> would stop badgering this community about the unfairness of how policies
> are applied to small Orgs, but I will NEVER stop complaining as long as
> I can breathe and type, until the aggregate opinions of the ARIN
> community come together to right this wrong.
>
> I tried to submit a simple policy change in an attempt to use the
> current system of policies to hopefully fix this. I asked members of
> this community if they might have any changes to my proposed language to
> improve the proposed policy to try and fix this. But in the end my
> policy proposal was voted down by the AC without even one email from the
> assigned Shepard(s) telling me a vote was even scheduled - and without
> checking to see if I might have any additional input for them to
> consider before they voted. What a system!
>
> Are there not any members of good will in the ARIN community who are
> willing to band together to finally fix this in a responsible way?
> Community Members? The Board? ARIN Management? Anyone out there?
>
> /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: Eclipse Networks
> Logo_small.png?Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>
> ^Conquering Complex Networks ^? ^
>
> *From:*Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 16, 2014 3:14 PM
> *To:* Steven Ryerse
> *Cc:* Kevin Kargel; arin-ppml at arin.net
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Use
>
> Then your issue is with how needs basis was being applied to IPv4 3
> years ago (and perhaps you also have issues with how it is currently
> being applied), rather than needs basis in general.
>
> Thus, your continued railing against all needs testing distracts from
> rather than enabling work towards an improvement to IPv4 needs basis
> that might resolve your issue. Arguing to eliminate needs testing
> creates a binary argument where those of us who believe needs testing is
> essential to good stewardship vs. those who want to eliminate it altogether.
>
> On the other hand, working towards a relaxed set of needs tests that
> meet the needs of more of the community is something I think most of the
> community would get behind. Previous experience has shown this to be
> generally true.
>
> Owen
>
>     On Dec 16, 2014, at 10:10 , Steven Ryerse
>     <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com <mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>>
>     wrote:
>
>     My experience was that I applied to ARIN for a /32 IPv6 block, a /22
>     IPv4 block (the minimum at the time), and an ASN number. The online
>     application asked me some questions which I answered. Once it was
>     processed I was notified that the IPv6 block and the ASN number were
>     allocated to me, and the IPv4 block allocation was denied. This was
>     about 3 years ago and at the time I thought the questions I was
>     asked were reasonable. I don?t recall having to provide anything
>     else except maybe a bill from my upstream provider.
>
>     I don?t have an issue with asking an applicant some basic questions
>     but I have a strong issue with using the answers to those questions
>     to deny an applicant the minimum block size. Regardless of the
>     original intent, the effect is the haves keeping the have nots from
>     getting resources and this falls squarely on small organizations. My
>     opinion.
>
>     /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/
>
>     <image001.jpg>?Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>
>     ^Conquering Complex Networks ^?
>
>     *From:*Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>     *Sent:*Monday, December 15, 2014 9:08 PM
>     *To:*Steven Ryerse
>     *Cc:*Kevin Kargel;arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
>     *Subject:*Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>
>     My point is that even before that discussion, there was and always
>     has been needs testing for IPv6.
>
>     Your claim that what they were advocating for is something new, as
>     if IPv6 wasn't already subject to needs testing is specious.
>
>     As such, I'm not sure what would cause you to want to scream.
>
>     Owen
>
>         On Dec 15, 2014, at 14:21 , Steven Ryerse
>         <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com
>         <mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
>
>         No, my request for a IPv6 /32 was fulfilled by ARIN. My IPv6
>         comment below was concerning discussion of a policy proposal for
>         a past proposal.
>
>         /Steven Ryerse/
>
>         /President/
>
>         /100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338/
>
>         /770.656.1460 - Cell/
>
>         /770.399.9099- Office/
>
>         <image001.jpg>?Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>
>         ^Conquering Complex Networks ^?
>
>         *From:*Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>         *Sent:*Monday, December 15, 2014 5:14 PM
>         *To:*Steven Ryerse
>         *Cc:*Kevin Kargel;arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
>         *Subject:*Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>
>         We have always had and still do have needs testing on all IPv6
>         allocations and assignments.
>
>         Do you know anyone who is having trouble getting the IPv6 space
>         that they need?
>
>         Owen
>
>             On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:49 , Steven Ryerse
>             <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com
>             <mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
>
>             I saw folks in this Community when discussing a policy
>             proposal earlier this year ? advocating for needs testing on
>             all IPv6 allocations. I wanted to scream when I read it!
>
>             As far as the Internet being different today, ARINs Mission
>             doesn?t go out the window because of Internet changes.
>
>             /Steven Ryerse/
>
>             /President/
>
>             /100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338/
>
>             /770.656.1460 - Cell/
>
>             /770.399.9099- Office/
>
>             <image001.jpg>?Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>
>             ^Conquering Complex Networks ^?
>
>             *From:*arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
>             <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>[mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]*On
>             Behalf Of*Kevin Kargel
>             *Sent:*Monday, December 15, 2014 1:12 PM
>             *To:*arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
>             *Subject:*[arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>
>             The internet is a different place now and things change and
>             evolve over time. If a modern day entrepreneur needed IP
>             space they would have little or no problem finding all the
>             IPv6 space they need at little or no cost and with virtually
>             no trouble.
>
>             When Jobs and Wozniak were starting up IPV4 was a different
>             animal.
>
>             Kevin
>
>             *From:*arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
>             <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>[mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]*On
>             Behalf Of*Steven Ryerse
>             *Sent:*Monday, December 15, 2014 10:16 AM
>             *To:*Bill Darte
>             *Cc:*arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
>             *Subject:*Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>
>             By that definition, I wonder if Jobs and Wozniak needed IP
>             resources today for their garage - could they get them?
>             Whether you like what they did or not they certainly have
>             advanced the Internet. And if John and Sue are working in
>             their garage today and need a /24 or a /22 from ARIN to
>             further the Internet, can they get them? With today?s
>             policies ? probably not as they might not have a business
>             plan yet, or signed contract with contractors, or gotten
>             their funding - or any other measure of need that is
>             currently indoctrinated in policy. What a shame!
>
>             //
>
>             /Steven Ryerse/
>
>             /President/
>
>             /100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338/
>
>             /www.eclipse-networks.com <http://www.eclipse-networks.com/>/
>
>             /770.656.1460 - Cell/
>
>             /770.399.9099- Office/
>
>             <image001.jpg>?Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>
>             ^Conquering Complex Networks ^?
>
>             *From:*Bill Darte [mailto:billdarte at gmail.com]
>             *Sent:*Monday, December 15, 2014 6:10 AM
>             *To:*Steven Ryerse
>             *Cc:*Jo Rhett;arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
>             *Subject:*Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>
>             Steven Ryerse said:
>
>             In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure
>             needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of
>             the real mission of advancing the Internet. Regardless of
>             your personal definition of need, why is some org who
>             doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now
>             precluded from getting resources? How does that advance the
>             Internet?
>
>             The community through ARIN is ensuring that the distribution
>             of v4 IP addresses are according to its policies which have
>             been and should continue to be needs-based..IMO. They are
>             not 'caught up' in the sense that they cannot
>             proceed...ndeed, they are doing the precise business that
>             policy and its mission calls for. That some orgs that cannot
>             meet the needs hurdle are denied...does not mean that others
>             who truly have a need are not serviced. Those with clear
>             need advance the Internet and do so demonstrably...whereas
>             those without a demonstrable need MAY advance the Internet
>             as well, but its a greater risk to the community and one
>             which the community has chosen to forgo.
>
>             Bill Darte
>
>             On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Steven Ryerse
>             <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com
>             <mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
>
>                 Though it has been a few months since I made those
>                 comments, I appreciate your feedback. Your description
>                 of "walk away with someone else?s belongings" seems to
>                 indicate that somehow the use of the Internet and the IP
>                 addresses that make the use of the Internet possible, is
>                 owned by ARIN or this Community or maybe ARIN and this
>                 Community.
>
>                 I find that line of thinking about as far as one can get
>                 from the spirit of Jon Postel and the way he went about
>                 advancing the Internet. When I read the original Mission
>                 Statement for ARIN or even the current one, I don't see
>                 that "needs" are more important than the actual mission
>                 of advancement and allocation. Good stewardship should
>                 be practiced but NOT to the detriment of the mission of
>                 advancement and allocation.
>
>                 In my opinion this community is so caught up in making
>                 sure needs based policies are followed, that it has lost
>                 sight of the real mission of advancing the Internet.
>                 Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is
>                 some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined
>                 by policy) now precluded from getting resources? How
>                 does that advance the Internet? I never met Jon Postel
>                 but from what I've heard about him, I suspect he would
>                 frown on some of the current policies regarding needs.
>                 My comments below and others I have made are intended to
>                 try to bring some balance into the discussion and my
>                 hope is that some day in the near future that will
>                 happen. I certainly don't desire there be no rules at
>                 all but the very loose rules followed by Jon Postel
>                 worked pretty well advancing the Internet. I think we
>                 could loosen the current policies like has been done in
>                 other regions and it would have a positive outcome. My
>                 two cents.
>
>                 Steven Ryerse
>                 President
>                 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
>                 www.eclipse-networks.com <http://www.eclipse-networks.com/>
>                 770.656.1460 <tel:770.656.1460> - Cell
>                 770.399.9099 <tel:770.399.9099>- Office
>
>                 ?Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>                 Conquering Complex Networks?
>
>                 -----Original Message-----
>                 From: Jo Rhett [mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com
>                 <mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com>]
>                 Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 12:17 AM
>                 To: Steven Ryerse
>                 Cc:arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
>                 Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>
>                 On Oct 27, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Steven Ryerse
>                 <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com
>                 <mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
>                  > If in the spirit of trying to prevent fraud
>                 non-fraudulent requests get rejected, then Arin's
>                 mission stops being fulfilled. I think it is important
>                 to make sure the mission is respected first and stopping
>                 fraud second or third or fifth or whatever. We could
>                 stop all fraud by stopping all allocations but of course
>                 that makes no sense. I would also point out that even
>                 when fraud happens Arin's Mission is still being fulfilled.
>
>                 I completely disagree. There are dozens if not hundreds
>                 of people with non-fraudulent requests who get denied
>                 for insufficient justification. That is ARIN doing their
>                 job successfully in my mind. If widespread fraud occurs
>                 and ARIN does not take action, then I feel strongly that
>                 ARIN would not be doing their job.
>
>                  > Of course maybe if the needs tests were loosened
>                 fraud would be significantly reduced as there would be
>                 no need to submit fraudulent requests.
>
>                 Do you mean that if it were permissible to walk away
>                 with someone else?s belongings, then theft would no
>                 longer occur? Your statement is true without making any
>                 sense at all.
>
>                  > I'm sure an org willing to submit a fraudulent
>                 request would tell you that they do have a need but they
>                 may not happen to meet the current arbitrary (and they
>                 are arbitrary) policy.
>
>                 I disagree completely. ARIN?s role is to satisfy
>                 needs-based requests. Exercising judgement of whether a
>                 need is realistic is doing their job.
>
>                 The only thing arbitrary here is your desire for there
>                 to be no rules at all. Deeply amusing, but not helpful
>                 for realistic policy.
>
>                 --
>                 Jo Rhett
>                 +1 (415) 999-1798 <tel:%2B1%20%28415%29%20999-1798>
>                 Skype: jorhett
>                 Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source
>                 and internet projects.
>
>                 _______________________________________________
>                 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 contactinfo at arin.net <mailto: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
>             <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
>             Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>             http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>             Please contactinfo at arin.net <mailto: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  Wed Dec 17 16:14:06 2014
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 13:14:06 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>

I'm sorry, but your argument is utterly specious.

First, the community includes ANYONE who chooses to participate and all comers participate on an equal footing.

The Small ORG cannot possibly have been shut out because there are simply far too many small and x-small orgs that have address space from ARIN for that to be a viable statement.

To wit:

https://www.arin.net/knowledge/statistics/historical.html

Shows that there are a total of 1,886 organizations that received addresses from ARIN in 2006-2007 (sorry, I don't know why more current data is not available there). Of those, 1029 were small and 777 were x-small. That's 1806 of 1886 organizations. Only 80 large and x-large organizations.

If each of those 1806 organizations were to vote in the next three election cycles, they could completely replace the board and the AC.

If they were to actively participate in the PDP, they would have overwhelming majority and be able to strongly drive consensus in any direction they wanted.

Yes, decisions are made by those who choose to participate. Just as in all other aspects of life, there is little value or credence given to those who stand on the sidelines and complain about being on the sidelines. I realize you aren't still standing on the sidelines, but you're still complaining about everyone else being "SHUT OUT" when the reality is that all they would have to do to change that is choose to participate.

The words "SHUT OUT" simply don't apply because their participation would be welcome, even encouraged just as yours has been.

As to your statements about the shepherd's handling of your policy, I'll leave that between you, the AC chair, and the shepherds. If it is as you describe, that doesn't sound right to me. Did you consider availing yourself of the petition process?

I admit I did vote to abandon your policy. I also commented publicly on it and we discussed my opposition, so I don't think it came as any sort of surprise to you. The dates of the AC conference calls are public information and each item on our docket is discussed and can be subject to motion (and vote) at each of those calls. Your policy also received substantial negative feedback and very little support on the mailing list.

Finally, I simply don't see how a small org can be "SHUT OUT" when current policy allows any organization that can show utilization of 128 host addresses within 30 days to get an IPv4 allocation or assignment. The multihoming requirements have been removed. The bar has been lowered to a /24 for all minima. If your organization is smaller than that, then even if we were to grant a "right-sized" assignment, you wouldn't be able to get it routed anyway, so I'm not sure what you think the point would be.

Owen


> On Dec 16, 2014, at 18:40 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
> 
> I would point out that I submitted proposal 2014-18 which would have removed needs testing only on the minimum sized allocations ? so yes I am trying to fix it at the low end.  I think the Needs testing needs to be scrapped altogether as was done in the Europe region in favor of right size testing but that isn?t the battle I?m trying to fight. 
>  
> A more pointed example of what I find wrong with needs testing rather than right sizing allocations per the size of the org and their network would be this:
>  
> A group of folks who all have one or more .com domain name allocation(s) and are all running one or more web sites using those allocations on the Internet gets together to form a ?Community? to Advance the use of the Internet.  At a particular point in time the various opinions of the members of this community aggregate their then current opinions and Best Practices on how .com domains should be managed and allocated, and a set of .com domain allocation policies are formed.  Of course since the policies are essentially an aggregate of the opinions of the members of that community at that time - they are arbitrary - and hopefully but there is no guarantee, that there has been wisdom and fairness built into these policies.  As time goes on more opinions from this Community are aggregated and the .com domain policies are modified and hopefully improved but of course there is no guarantee of that since they are an aggregated arbitrary collection of hopefully best practice opinions formed into policies.   One day a very small org decides it is in their best interest to apply for an allocation for one domain name so they can have a web site.  They are willing to pay the fee for it and they check the registry database and find that abc123doreme.com <http://abc123doreme.com/> has not been allocated to anyone - and so they apply to have it allocated to them.  Unfortunately for that small org, the policies have been modified over time and based on applying the then current policies (which are and always will be arbitrary), the request for that one unallocated domain name is rejected per current Policy.  Of course the effect of this rejected allocation request is that this small org can NOT bring up their web site using the denied domain name.  Even though it may or may not have been the intent of this .com domain ?Community? to shut out the small Org from using the Internet in the way they felt was in their best Interest, THE SMALL ORG HAS BEEN SHUT OUT BY THIS .COM ALLOCATION ?COMMUNITY? via policies)!  This small Org doesn?t think it is fair that the others got a .com allocation - and there is one available - and they still can?t get even ONE!  Many of these folks who now have one or many .com allocation(s) would not be able to get their existing .com allocation(s) today under the current .com allocation policies as currently defined by this .com allocation Community.  This small Org didn?t apply for many .com domain names ? they applied for the Minimum of one of them.  And of course they are correct ? the polices the .com allocation Community aggregated did in fact shut out this one small Org from bringing up their valued web site because they were denied the resources required to do so by the only official ?Community? in their region that can give them approval.  Worse yet other small Orgs continue to get denied by the current policies.  Instead of the Internet being Advanced by the Community?s Policies which of course was originally put in the Mission Statement so that everyone would know their Mission, application of the Policies has done the exact opposite and this small Org and others who have been denied have suffered. 
>  
> I know that at least some Members of this ARIN region Community wish I would stop badgering this community about the unfairness of how policies are applied to small Orgs, but I will NEVER stop complaining as long as I can breathe and type, until the aggregate opinions of the ARIN community come together to right this wrong. 
>  
> I tried to submit a simple policy change in an attempt to use the current system of policies to hopefully fix this.  I asked members of this community if they might have any changes to my proposed language to improve the proposed policy to try and fix this.  But in the end my policy proposal was voted down by the AC without even one email from the assigned Shepard(s) telling me a vote was even scheduled - and without checking to see if I might have any additional input for them to consider before they voted.  What a system!
>  
> Are there not any members of good will in the ARIN community who are willing to band together to finally fix this in a responsible way?  Community Members?  The Board? ARIN Management?  Anyone out there?  
>  
> 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
>  
> <image001.jpg>? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>         Conquering Complex Networks?
>  
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 3:14 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: Kevin Kargel; arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Use
>  
> Then your issue is with how needs basis was being applied to IPv4 3 years ago (and perhaps you also have issues with how it is currently being applied), rather than needs basis in general.
>  
> Thus, your continued railing against all needs testing distracts from rather than enabling work towards an improvement to IPv4 needs basis that might resolve your issue. Arguing to eliminate needs testing creates a binary argument where those of us who believe needs testing is essential to good stewardship vs. those who want to eliminate it altogether.
>  
> On the other hand, working towards a relaxed set of needs tests that meet the needs of more of the community is something I think most of the community would get behind. Previous experience has shown this to be generally true.
>  
> Owen
>  
> On Dec 16, 2014, at 10:10 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com <mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
>  
> My experience was that I applied to ARIN for a /32 IPv6 block, a /22 IPv4 block (the minimum at the time), and an ASN number.  The online application asked me some questions which I answered.  Once it was processed I was notified that the IPv6 block and the ASN number were allocated to me, and the IPv4 block allocation was denied.  This was about 3 years ago and at the time I thought the questions I was asked were reasonable.  I don?t recall having to provide anything else except maybe a bill from my upstream provider. 
>  
> I don?t have an issue with asking an applicant some basic questions but I have a strong issue with using the answers to those questions to deny an applicant the minimum block size.  Regardless of the original intent, the effect is the haves keeping the have nots from getting resources and this falls squarely on small organizations.  My opinion. 
>  
> 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
>  
> <image001.jpg>? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>         Conquering Complex Networks?
>  
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>] 
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 9:08 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: Kevin Kargel; arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>  
> My point is that even before that discussion, there was and always has been needs testing for IPv6.
>  
> Your claim that what they were advocating for is something new, as if IPv6 wasn't already subject to needs testing is specious.
>  
> As such, I'm not sure what would cause you to want to scream.
>  
> Owen
>  
> On Dec 15, 2014, at 14:21 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com <mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
>  
> No, my request for a IPv6 /32 was fulfilled by ARIN.  My IPv6 comment below was concerning discussion of a policy proposal for a past proposal.
>  
> Steven Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099- Office
>  
> <image001.jpg>? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>         Conquering Complex Networks?
>  
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>] 
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 5:14 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: Kevin Kargel; arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>  
> We have always had and still do have needs testing on all IPv6 allocations and assignments.
>  
> Do you know anyone who is having trouble getting the IPv6 space that they need?
>  
> Owen
>  
> On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:49 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com <mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
>  
> I saw folks in this Community when discussing a policy proposal earlier this year ? advocating for needs testing on all IPv6 allocations. I wanted to scream when I read it!  
>  
> As far as the Internet being different today, ARINs Mission doesn?t go out the window because of Internet changes.
>  
> Steven Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099- Office
>  
> <image001.jpg>? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>         Conquering Complex Networks?
>  
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>] On Behalf Of Kevin Kargel
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 1:12 PM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>  
>  
> The internet is a different place now and things change and evolve over time.  If a modern day entrepreneur needed IP space they would have little or no problem finding all the IPv6 space they need at little or no cost and with virtually no trouble. 
> When Jobs and Wozniak were starting up IPV4 was a different animal.
> Kevin
>  
>  
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 10:16 AM
> To: Bill Darte
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>  
> By that definition, I wonder if Jobs and Wozniak needed IP resources today for their garage - could they get them?  Whether you like what they did or not they certainly have advanced the Internet.  And if John and Sue are working in their garage today and need a /24 or a /22 from ARIN to further the Internet, can they get them?  With today?s policies ? probably not as they might not have a business plan yet, or signed contract with contractors, or gotten their funding - or any other measure of need that is currently indoctrinated in policy.  What a shame! 
>  
>  
> Steven Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> www.eclipse-networks.com <http://www.eclipse-networks.com/>
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099- Office
>  
> <image001.jpg>? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>         Conquering Complex Networks?
>  
> From: Bill Darte [mailto:billdarte at gmail.com <mailto:billdarte at gmail.com>] 
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 6:10 AM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: Jo Rhett; arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>  
> Steven Ryerse said: 
> In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?
>  
> The community through ARIN is ensuring that the distribution of v4 IP addresses are according to its policies which have been and should continue to be needs-based..IMO.  They are not 'caught up' in the sense that they cannot proceed...ndeed, they are doing the precise business that policy and its mission calls for.  That some orgs that cannot meet the needs hurdle are denied...does not mean that others who truly have a need are not serviced.  Those with clear need advance the Internet and do so demonstrably...whereas those without a demonstrable need MAY advance the Internet as well, but its a greater risk to the community and one which the community has chosen to forgo.
>  
> Bill Darte
>  
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com <mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
> Though it has been a few months since I made those comments, I appreciate your feedback.  Your description of "walk away with someone else?s belongings" seems to indicate that somehow the use of the Internet and the IP addresses that make the use of the Internet possible, is owned by ARIN or this Community or maybe ARIN and this Community.
> 
> I find that line of thinking about as far as one can get from the spirit of Jon Postel and the way he went about advancing the Internet.  When I read the original Mission Statement for ARIN or even the current one, I don't see that "needs" are more important than the actual mission of advancement and allocation.  Good stewardship should be practiced but NOT to the detriment of the mission of advancement and allocation.
> 
> In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?  I never met Jon Postel but from what I've heard about him, I suspect he would frown on some of the current policies regarding needs.  My comments below and others I have made are intended to try to bring some balance into the discussion and my hope is that some day in the near future that will happen.  I certainly don't desire there be no rules at all but the very loose rules followed by Jon Postel worked pretty well advancing the Internet.  I think we could loosen the current policies like has been done in other regions and it would have a positive outcome.  My two cents.
> 
> Steven Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> www.eclipse-networks.com <http://www.eclipse-networks.com/>
> 770.656.1460 <tel:770.656.1460> - Cell
> 770.399.9099 <tel:770.399.9099>- Office
> 
> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>                      Conquering Complex Networks?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jo Rhett [mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com <mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com>]
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 12:17 AM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
> 
> On Oct 27, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com <mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
> > If in the spirit of trying to prevent fraud non-fraudulent requests get rejected, then Arin's mission stops being fulfilled.  I think it is important to make sure the mission is respected first and stopping fraud second or third or fifth or whatever.  We could stop all fraud by stopping all allocations but of course that makes no sense.  I would also point out that even when fraud happens Arin's Mission is still being fulfilled.
> 
> I completely disagree. There are dozens if not hundreds of people with non-fraudulent requests who get denied for insufficient justification. That is ARIN doing their job successfully in my mind. If widespread fraud occurs and ARIN does not take action, then I feel strongly that ARIN would not be doing their job.
> 
> > Of course maybe if the needs tests were loosened fraud would be significantly reduced as there would be no need to submit fraudulent requests.
> 
> Do you mean that if it were permissible to walk away with someone else?s belongings, then theft would no longer occur? Your statement is true without making any sense at all.
> 
> > I'm sure an org willing to submit a fraudulent request would tell you that they do have a need but they may not happen to meet the current arbitrary (and they are arbitrary) policy.
> 
> I disagree completely. ARIN?s role is to satisfy needs-based requests. Exercising judgement of whether a need is realistic is doing their job.
> 
> The only thing arbitrary here is your desire for there to be no rules at all. Deeply amusing, but not helpful for realistic policy.
> 
> --
> Jo Rhett
> +1 (415) 999-1798 <tel:%2B1%20%28415%29%20999-1798>
> Skype: jorhett
> Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
> Please contact info at arin.net <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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/20141217/24aca73a/attachment.htm>

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Dec 17 17:47:26 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 16:47:26 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxj1ftwpX+a7_FBo_KH1gJmdrtvXpBosdBHufyhxWv4ysw@mail.gmail.com>

I have to agree with Owen, I just got my first v4 request from ARIN
approved for a small org.

Wasn't hard, wasn't burdensome.


On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, but your argument is utterly specious.
>


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141217/71a19e43/attachment.htm>

From bcornett at servlet.com  Wed Dec 17 17:56:11 2014
From: bcornett at servlet.com (Bruce Cornett)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 17:56:11 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
Message-ID: <54920A0B.70007@servlet.com>


As a little guy I am acutely aware of the giants among us.

But I agree with Owen.  I just assisted a client with an end user 
application.  And while it took a little effort to educate the client 
and some effort to provide the documentation, it was not overly 
burdensome.

My client received their allocation.

Bruce C


From ikiris at gmail.com  Thu Dec 18 00:11:26 2014
From: ikiris at gmail.com (Blake Dunlap)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 21:11:26 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <54920A0B.70007@servlet.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
	<54920A0B.70007@servlet.com>
Message-ID: <CAJvB4tm6pJaX5X8nviF3rqMYU-FMtoM6MX1OcXVMVLx6p2O_MQ@mail.gmail.com>

I also agree that this is an argument on very shaky ground, bordering
on ridiculous. It is almost 0 barrier to entry for any small entity at
this point. If you can't justify even the most modest needs test, then
why do you need your own ip space to begin with?

I could probably pass needs test with just my home network at this
point, so I find it very uncompelling that we should remove the
requirements just because a lazy business owner ran afowl of them and
would rather rail against the governing body than put forth any effort
to resolve the issue, or fix his own business model around the
realities of the market / physics / math of IPv4 ip address
availability vs demand.

Note: I've been denied in the past for blocks. No it isn't an
enjoyable experience, but the rules are there for a reason. It's
really not that hard to fix the issue. The main problem these days is
with ISP contiguous block availability and subsequent renumbering, and
my understanding is that has been resolved by policy changes. If this
issue remains, then let's fix that, not throw the entire set of
management out the window because one guy can't get a block of IPs for
his single leaf web server.

(Disclaimer: These opinions are my own, and not implied to convey or
represent those of my current employer in any way. I post from my
personal account for a reason.)

-Blake

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Bruce Cornett <bcornett at servlet.com> wrote:
>
> As a little guy I am acutely aware of the giants among us.
>
> But I agree with Owen.  I just assisted a client with an end user
> application.  And while it took a little effort to educate the client and
> some effort to provide the documentation, it was not overly burdensome.
>
> My client received their allocation.
>
> Bruce C
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage 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 Dec 18 11:35:41 2014
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 16:35:41 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

All of those stats are interesting but they are not what is important here.  What is important is how many small Orgs that applied for the minimum allocation (as it was defined at the time of the allocation request) since ARIN was chartered were denied because of needs policy.

I don?t know what that number is but if it is greater than zero, it shouldn?t have happened!  ARIN?s Mission is to Advance the Internet, not to stifle it.

If it is not OK to deny the Minimum domain (available) name to an Org, then it isn?t OK to deny an Org the Minimum  IP allocation.  They are both Internet resources.

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

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

From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 4:14 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Kevin Kargel; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: Internet Fairness

I'm sorry, but your argument is utterly specious.

First, the community includes ANYONE who chooses to participate and all comers participate on an equal footing.

The Small ORG cannot possibly have been shut out because there are simply far too many small and x-small orgs that have address space from ARIN for that to be a viable statement.

To wit:

https://www.arin.net/knowledge/statistics/historical.html

Shows that there are a total of 1,886 organizations that received addresses from ARIN in 2006-2007 (sorry, I don't know why more current data is not available there). Of those, 1029 were small and 777 were x-small. That's 1806 of 1886 organizations. Only 80 large and x-large organizations.

If each of those 1806 organizations were to vote in the next three election cycles, they could completely replace the board and the AC.

If they were to actively participate in the PDP, they would have overwhelming majority and be able to strongly drive consensus in any direction they wanted.

Yes, decisions are made by those who choose to participate. Just as in all other aspects of life, there is little value or credence given to those who stand on the sidelines and complain about being on the sidelines. I realize you aren't still standing on the sidelines, but you're still complaining about everyone else being "SHUT OUT" when the reality is that all they would have to do to change that is choose to participate.

The words "SHUT OUT" simply don't apply because their participation would be welcome, even encouraged just as yours has been.

As to your statements about the shepherd's handling of your policy, I'll leave that between you, the AC chair, and the shepherds. If it is as you describe, that doesn't sound right to me. Did you consider availing yourself of the petition process?

I admit I did vote to abandon your policy. I also commented publicly on it and we discussed my opposition, so I don't think it came as any sort of surprise to you. The dates of the AC conference calls are public information and each item on our docket is discussed and can be subject to motion (and vote) at each of those calls. Your policy also received substantial negative feedback and very little support on the mailing list.

Finally, I simply don't see how a small org can be "SHUT OUT" when current policy allows any organization that can show utilization of 128 host addresses within 30 days to get an IPv4 allocation or assignment. The multihoming requirements have been removed. The bar has been lowered to a /24 for all minima. If your organization is smaller than that, then even if we were to grant a "right-sized" assignment, you wouldn't be able to get it routed anyway, so I'm not sure what you think the point would be.

Owen


On Dec 16, 2014, at 18:40 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:

I would point out that I submitted proposal 2014-18 which would have removed needs testing only on the minimum sized allocations ? so yes I am trying to fix it at the low end.  I think the Needs testing needs to be scrapped altogether as was done in the Europe region in favor of right size testing but that isn?t the battle I?m trying to fight.

A more pointed example of what I find wrong with needs testing rather than right sizing allocations per the size of the org and their network would be this:

A group of folks who all have one or more .com domain name allocation(s) and are all running one or more web sites using those allocations on the Internet gets together to form a ?Community? to Advance the use of the Internet.  At a particular point in time the various opinions of the members of this community aggregate their then current opinions and Best Practices on how .com domains should be managed and allocated, and a set of .com domain allocation policies are formed.  Of course since the policies are essentially an aggregate of the opinions of the members of that community at that time - they are arbitrary - and hopefully but there is no guarantee, that there has been wisdom and fairness built into these policies.  As time goes on more opinions from this Community are aggregated and the .com domain policies are modified and hopefully improved but of course there is no guarantee of that since they are an aggregated arbitrary collection of hopefully best practice opinions formed into policies.   One day a very small org decides it is in their best interest to apply for an allocation for one domain name so they can have a web site.  They are willing to pay the fee for it and they check the registry database and find that abc123doreme.com<http://abc123doreme.com/> has not been allocated to anyone - and so they apply to have it allocated to them.  Unfortunately for that small org, the policies have been modified over time and based on applying the then current policies (which are and always will be arbitrary), the request for that one unallocated domain name is rejected per current Policy.  Of course the effect of this rejected allocation request is that this small org can NOT bring up their web site using the denied domain name.  Even though it may or may not have been the intent of this .com domain ?Community? to shut out the small Org from using the Internet in the way they felt was in their best Interest, THE SMALL ORG HAS BEEN SHUT OUT BY THIS .COM ALLOCATION ?COMMUNITY? via policies)!  This small Org doesn?t think it is fair that the others got a .com allocation - and there is one available - and they still can?t get even ONE!  Many of these folks who now have one or many .com allocation(s) would not be able to get their existing .com allocation(s) today under the current .com allocation policies as currently defined by this .com allocation Community.  This small Org didn?t apply for many .com domain names ? they applied for the Minimum of one of them.  And of course they are correct ? the polices the .com allocation Community aggregated did in fact shut out this one small Org from bringing up their valued web site because they were denied the resources required to do so by the only official ?Community? in their region that can give them approval.  Worse yet other small Orgs continue to get denied by the current policies.  Instead of the Internet being Advanced by the Community?s Policies which of course was originally put in the Mission Statement so that everyone would know their Mission, application of the Policies has done the exact opposite and this small Org and others who have been denied have suffered.

I know that at least some Members of this ARIN region Community wish I would stop badgering this community about the unfairness of how policies are applied to small Orgs, but I will NEVER stop complaining as long as I can breathe and type, until the aggregate opinions of the ARIN community come together to right this wrong.

I tried to submit a simple policy change in an attempt to use the current system of policies to hopefully fix this.  I asked members of this community if they might have any changes to my proposed language to improve the proposed policy to try and fix this.  But in the end my policy proposal was voted down by the AC without even one email from the assigned Shepard(s) telling me a vote was even scheduled - and without checking to see if I might have any additional input for them to consider before they voted.  What a system!

Are there not any members of good will in the ARIN community who are willing to band together to finally fix this in a responsible way?  Community Members?  The Board? ARIN Management?  Anyone out there?

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

<image001.jpg>? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
        Conquering Complex Networks?

From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 3:14 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Kevin Kargel; arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Use

Then your issue is with how needs basis was being applied to IPv4 3 years ago (and perhaps you also have issues with how it is currently being applied), rather than needs basis in general.

Thus, your continued railing against all needs testing distracts from rather than enabling work towards an improvement to IPv4 needs basis that might resolve your issue. Arguing to eliminate needs testing creates a binary argument where those of us who believe needs testing is essential to good stewardship vs. those who want to eliminate it altogether.

On the other hand, working towards a relaxed set of needs tests that meet the needs of more of the community is something I think most of the community would get behind. Previous experience has shown this to be generally true.

Owen

On Dec 16, 2014, at 10:10 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:

My experience was that I applied to ARIN for a /32 IPv6 block, a /22 IPv4 block (the minimum at the time), and an ASN number.  The online application asked me some questions which I answered.  Once it was processed I was notified that the IPv6 block and the ASN number were allocated to me, and the IPv4 block allocation was denied.  This was about 3 years ago and at the time I thought the questions I was asked were reasonable.  I don?t recall having to provide anything else except maybe a bill from my upstream provider.

I don?t have an issue with asking an applicant some basic questions but I have a strong issue with using the answers to those questions to deny an applicant the minimum block size.  Regardless of the original intent, the effect is the haves keeping the have nots from getting resources and this falls squarely on small organizations.  My opinion.

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

<image001.jpg>? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
        Conquering Complex Networks?

From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 9:08 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Kevin Kargel; arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

My point is that even before that discussion, there was and always has been needs testing for IPv6.

Your claim that what they were advocating for is something new, as if IPv6 wasn't already subject to needs testing is specious.

As such, I'm not sure what would cause you to want to scream.

Owen

On Dec 15, 2014, at 14:21 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:

No, my request for a IPv6 /32 was fulfilled by ARIN.  My IPv6 comment below was concerning discussion of a policy proposal for a past proposal.

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

<image001.jpg>? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
        Conquering Complex Networks?

From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 5:14 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Kevin Kargel; arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

We have always had and still do have needs testing on all IPv6 allocations and assignments.

Do you know anyone who is having trouble getting the IPv6 space that they need?

Owen

On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:49 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:

I saw folks in this Community when discussing a policy proposal earlier this year ? advocating for needs testing on all IPv6 allocations. I wanted to scream when I read it!

As far as the Internet being different today, ARINs Mission doesn?t go out the window because of Internet changes.

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

<image001.jpg>? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
        Conquering Complex Networks?

From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Kargel
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 1:12 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use


The internet is a different place now and things change and evolve over time.  If a modern day entrepreneur needed IP space they would have little or no problem finding all the IPv6 space they need at little or no cost and with virtually no trouble.
When Jobs and Wozniak were starting up IPV4 was a different animal.
Kevin


From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 10:16 AM
To: Bill Darte
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

By that definition, I wonder if Jobs and Wozniak needed IP resources today for their garage - could they get them?  Whether you like what they did or not they certainly have advanced the Internet.  And if John and Sue are working in their garage today and need a /24 or a /22 from ARIN to further the Internet, can they get them?  With today?s policies ? probably not as they might not have a business plan yet, or signed contract with contractors, or gotten their funding - or any other measure of need that is currently indoctrinated in policy.  What a shame!


Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
www.eclipse-networks.com<http://www.eclipse-networks.com/>
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office

<image001.jpg>? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
        Conquering Complex Networks?

From: Bill Darte [mailto:billdarte at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 6:10 AM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Jo Rhett; arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

Steven Ryerse said:
In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?

The community through ARIN is ensuring that the distribution of v4 IP addresses are according to its policies which have been and should continue to be needs-based..IMO.  They are not 'caught up' in the sense that they cannot proceed...ndeed, they are doing the precise business that policy and its mission calls for.  That some orgs that cannot meet the needs hurdle are denied...does not mean that others who truly have a need are not serviced.  Those with clear need advance the Internet and do so demonstrably...whereas those without a demonstrable need MAY advance the Internet as well, but its a greater risk to the community and one which the community has chosen to forgo.

Bill Darte

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
Though it has been a few months since I made those comments, I appreciate your feedback.  Your description of "walk away with someone else?s belongings" seems to indicate that somehow the use of the Internet and the IP addresses that make the use of the Internet possible, is owned by ARIN or this Community or maybe ARIN and this Community.

I find that line of thinking about as far as one can get from the spirit of Jon Postel and the way he went about advancing the Internet.  When I read the original Mission Statement for ARIN or even the current one, I don't see that "needs" are more important than the actual mission of advancement and allocation.  Good stewardship should be practiced but NOT to the detriment of the mission of advancement and allocation.

In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?  I never met Jon Postel but from what I've heard about him, I suspect he would frown on some of the current policies regarding needs.  My comments below and others I have made are intended to try to bring some balance into the discussion and my hope is that some day in the near future that will happen.  I certainly don't desire there be no rules at all but the very loose rules followed by Jon Postel worked pretty well advancing the Internet.  I think we could loosen the current policies like has been done in other regions and it would have a positive outcome.  My two cents.

Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
www.eclipse-networks.com<http://www.eclipse-networks.com/>
770.656.1460<tel:770.656.1460> - Cell
770.399.9099<tel:770.399.9099>- Office

? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
                     Conquering Complex Networks?

-----Original Message-----
From: Jo Rhett [mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com<mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com>]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 12:17 AM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use

On Oct 27, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
> If in the spirit of trying to prevent fraud non-fraudulent requests get rejected, then Arin's mission stops being fulfilled.  I think it is important to make sure the mission is respected first and stopping fraud second or third or fifth or whatever.  We could stop all fraud by stopping all allocations but of course that makes no sense.  I would also point out that even when fraud happens Arin's Mission is still being fulfilled.

I completely disagree. There are dozens if not hundreds of people with non-fraudulent requests who get denied for insufficient justification. That is ARIN doing their job successfully in my mind. If widespread fraud occurs and ARIN does not take action, then I feel strongly that ARIN would not be doing their job.

> Of course maybe if the needs tests were loosened fraud would be significantly reduced as there would be no need to submit fraudulent requests.

Do you mean that if it were permissible to walk away with someone else?s belongings, then theft would no longer occur? Your statement is true without making any sense at all.

> I'm sure an org willing to submit a fraudulent request would tell you that they do have a need but they may not happen to meet the current arbitrary (and they are arbitrary) policy.

I disagree completely. ARIN?s role is to satisfy needs-based requests. Exercising judgement of whether a need is realistic is doing their job.

The only thing arbitrary here is your desire for there to be no rules at all. Deeply amusing, but not helpful for realistic policy.

--
Jo Rhett
+1 (415) 999-1798<tel:%2B1%20%28415%29%20999-1798>
Skype: jorhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.

_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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/20141218/d59bde73/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1468 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141218/d59bde73/attachment.jpg>

From ajs at anvilwalrusden.com  Thu Dec 18 11:58:33 2014
From: ajs at anvilwalrusden.com (Andrew Sullivan)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:58:33 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <20141218165833.GC33386@mx1.yitter.info>

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 04:35:41PM +0000, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> 
> If it is not OK to deny the Minimum domain (available) name to an Org, then it isn?t OK to deny an Org the Minimum  IP allocation.  They are both Internet resources.
> 

The analogy seems faulty to me.  The number space is finite (and in
the case of v4, not very large).  The name space in any given registry
is admittedly not infinite, since (1) it's limited to labels 63 octets
long from the LDH repertoire and (2) useful mnemonics are generally
shorter than 63 octets and usually a wordlike thing in some natural
language.  There are, however, lots of registries (more all the time!
Thanks, ICANN!); and last I checked neither info nor biz was anything
close to the size (or utility) of com, even though they've both been
around since 2001 and have rather similar registration rules.  So,
there is an argument in favour of tight rules for allocation of v4
numbers that is not available in the name case.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com


From owen at delong.com  Thu Dec 18 12:03:44 2014
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 09:03:44 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <9259666C-B441-4FEF-A356-6745E43A6944@delong.com>


> On Dec 18, 2014, at 08:35 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
> 
> All of those stats are interesting but they are not what is important here.  What is important is how many small Orgs that applied for the minimum allocation (as it was defined at the time of the allocation request) since ARIN was chartered were denied because of needs policy.

I disagree. The number of orgs denied by previous iterations of the policy are no longer relevant. What is relevant is experience with the current policy. Continuing to focus on the past results of problems in policy which have already been corrected in the policy doesn't do anything for anyone. If there are still flaws in the current policy, then let's examine what is happening in those cases.

> I don?t know what that number is but if it is greater than zero, it shouldn?t have happened!  ARIN?s Mission is to Advance the Internet, not to stifle it.

I don't agree. There are lots of cases where an organization could present a desire for addresses without a need. Handing out the limited remaining resources to such organizations would be a disservice to the community and to the internet. You may not share my opinion in this area and we can (and likely will) agree to disagree. However, IMHO, we are at a point with IPv4 where every address allocated or assigned is an address effectively taken away from someone else. Therefore, it is only prudent to make sure that each address allocated or assigned goes to an organization with a genuine need for those addresses.

> If it is not OK to deny the Minimum domain (available) name to an Org, then it isn?t OK to deny an Org the Minimum  IP allocation.  They are both Internet resources.   

This is an absurd apples and oranges comparison.

Let's try making something a bit more parallel...

Is it OK to deny people 2-letter SLDs? Is it OK to deny people TLDs? What about 3-letter SLDs?

There are only 3.2 Billion IPv4 unicast addresses. We can't make more. We can't continue giving them out when we run out.

To the best of my knowledge, all possible 2 letter domains in COM, NET, and ORG are already registered. Therefore, anyone attempting to apply for a 2-letter SLD in those zones will be denied.

While ICANN is now handing out far more TLDs than I believe to be good for the internet, even their incredible burst of greed over sanity does not allow every applicant who wants one to get a TLD.

ALL resources have some form of policy restriction on them and some level of gatekeeping on how they are allocated.

Very soon, ARIN will be at a point where they will receive applications that will not result in a choice of approve/deny vs. which application gets space and which does not. Every allocation that goes to an organization without need at this point literally increases the number of applicants with need who will be denied when that time arrives.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141218/11e73f2b/attachment.htm>

From gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com  Thu Dec 18 12:11:55 2014
From: gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com (Gary Buhrmaster)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 17:11:55 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <CAMfXtQwj_-=1rm5rSq0LD+VbD2_mu9JWZEx2fyL5siTV-O4xmQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Steven Ryerse
<SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>
> All of those stats are interesting but they are not what is important here.  What is important is how many small Orgs that applied for the minimum allocation (as it was defined at the time of the allocation request) since ARIN was chartered were denied because of needs policy.
>
> I don?t know what that number is but if it is greater than zero, it shouldn?t have happened!  ARIN?s Mission is to Advance the Internet, not to stifle it.

While there is clearly support by some for your
position advocating needless number allocations,
the majority of the community supports a review
to insure that the allocations are actually advancing
the Internet, and not just throwing numbers around
to whomever asks, whatever their plans (or lack
thereof).


From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Thu Dec 18 12:15:46 2014
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 17:15:46 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <20141218165833.GC33386@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net
	works.com><0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com><5B9E90747FA2974
	D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<20141218165833.GC33386@mx1.yitter.info>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

Thanks for your comments!  Actually the total number of possible .com permutations is limited too.  IPv4 addresses and .com domain names are both just Internet resources that Internet users need to use the Internet.  Obviously there are less IPv4 addresses than .com combinations, but IPv4 is still the only way to access most of the Internet.  While ARIN has resources to allocate - I'm absolutely fine limiting the size of an allocation to match the size of an Org and their network, but I'm not fine with denying an Org any resources.  

Also IPv4 cannot somehow be saved by conservation.  Regardless of any policy, ARIN will run out of IPv4 probably within the next year.  If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that really make it OK to start denying small Orgs .com domain name requests? 

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 Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:59 AM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 04:35:41PM +0000, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> 
> If it is not OK to deny the Minimum domain (available) name to an Org, then it isn?t OK to deny an Org the Minimum  IP allocation.  They are both Internet resources.
> 

The analogy seems faulty to me.  The number space is finite (and in the case of v4, not very large).  The name space in any given registry is admittedly not infinite, since (1) it's limited to labels 63 octets long from the LDH repertoire and (2) useful mnemonics are generally shorter than 63 octets and usually a wordlike thing in some natural language.  There are, however, lots of registries (more all the time!
Thanks, ICANN!); and last I checked neither info nor biz was anything close to the size (or utility) of com, even though they've both been around since 2001 and have rather similar registration rules.  So, there is an argument in favour of tight rules for allocation of v4 numbers that is not available in the name case.

Best regards,

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.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 sethm at rollernet.us  Thu Dec 18 12:25:11 2014
From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 09:25:11 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <CAMfXtQwj_-=1rm5rSq0LD+VbD2_mu9JWZEx2fyL5siTV-O4xmQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>	<0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CAMfXtQwj_-=1rm5rSq0LD+VbD2_mu9JWZEx2fyL5siTV-O4xmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54930DF7.50400@rollernet.us>

On 12/18/14, 9:11, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Steven Ryerse
> <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>
>> All of those stats are interesting but they are not what is important here.  What is important is how many small Orgs that applied for the minimum allocation (as it was defined at the time of the allocation request) since ARIN was chartered were denied because of needs policy.
>>
>> I don?t know what that number is but if it is greater than zero, it shouldn?t have happened!  ARIN?s Mission is to Advance the Internet, not to stifle it.
>
> While there is clearly support by some for your
> position advocating needless number allocations,
> the majority of the community supports a review
> to insure that the allocations are actually advancing
> the Internet, and not just throwing numbers around
> to whomever asks, whatever their plans (or lack
> thereof).


Planning is hard and I don't like the rules. Not give me /16's right now 
my innovation will be stifled and I'm gonna tell!

~Seth


From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Thu Dec 18 12:27:20 2014
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 17:27:20 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <CAMfXtQwj_-=1rm5rSq0LD+VbD2_mu9JWZEx2fyL5siTV-O4xmQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net
	works.com><0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com><5B9E90747FA2974
	D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CAMfXtQwj_-=1rm5rSq0LD+VbD2_mu9JWZEx2fyL5siTV-O4xmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B38D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

Maybe a majority of the vocal community does, but I doubt if you add in all members of the community who do not comment and all the members of the community that only hold legacy allocations, I suspect that might not be the case.  I think the legacy community is speaking volumes by not participating by commenting in this forum.  

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: Gary Buhrmaster [mailto:gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:12 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Owen DeLong; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>
> All of those stats are interesting but they are not what is important here.  What is important is how many small Orgs that applied for the minimum allocation (as it was defined at the time of the allocation request) since ARIN was chartered were denied because of needs policy.
>
> I don?t know what that number is but if it is greater than zero, it shouldn?t have happened!  ARIN?s Mission is to Advance the Internet, not to stifle it.

While there is clearly support by some for your position advocating needless number allocations, the majority of the community supports a review to insure that the allocations are actually advancing the Internet, and not just throwing numbers around to whomever asks, whatever their plans (or lack thereof).

From ajs at anvilwalrusden.com  Thu Dec 18 12:48:27 2014
From: ajs at anvilwalrusden.com (Andrew Sullivan)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 12:48:27 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<20141218165833.GC33386@mx1.yitter.info>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <20141218174826.GF33386@mx1.yitter.info>

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 05:15:46PM +0000, Steven Ryerse wrote:

> .com permutations is limited too.

Yes, and my mail pointed out how.

> IPv4 addresses and .com domain names are both just Internet
> resources that Internet users need to use the Internet.

They're different kinds of resources, though.  Protocol parameters are
also just Internet resources, but there are different policies for how
you get a DNS RRTYPE number, a UDP or TCP port number, and so on; and
these policies are different to how one gets an IP address or a domain
name.  Saying, "Just resources, therefore they should have the same
policy," effectively claims that there are no differences between
these kinds of resources; I claim that's false.

> Also IPv4 cannot somehow be saved by conservation.  Regardless of
> any policy, ARIN will run out of IPv4 probably within the next year.
> If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that really make it
> OK to start denying small Orgs .com domain name requests?

The argument for the minimum allocation policy is not "size of org",
but "amount of use given the allocation and minimum allocation size
given the Internet routing system".  I don't have any trouble
imagining that a name registry approaching identifier exhaustion could
adopt a policy that domain names in the registry would be required to
be used (or the registration would be revoked).  In fact, some name
registries do have separate allocation policies for "reservation" and
"registration".  Xxx does this, for instance (a very effective
revenue-plumping move, I am told).  Of course, the differences between
naming and numbering probably mean that such a restriction in the name
case would be silly except in particular cases (like xxx).  And that's
sort of the point: the analogy isn't doing the work you want here,
because the differences between names and numbers means that policy
for one of them is not good in the other case.  For example, number
resources can't be handed out one at a time for the sake of the
routing system, but domain names are _always_ allocated that way.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com


From owen at delong.com  Thu Dec 18 12:47:00 2014
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 09:47:00 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B38D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net
	works.com> <0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974
	D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CAMfXtQwj_-=1rm5rSq0LD+VbD2_mu9JWZEx2fyL5siTV-O4xmQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B38D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <535D0B74-4969-4FA3-B496-A4C4ECCC68A8@delong.com>

It's always fun when people depend on nameless faceless silent majorities to bolster their argument.

Bottom line, in this as in all things, decisions are made by those who show up. If the members of the community who do not comment and/or only hold legacy allocations continue to not speak up, then it is impossible for us to consider their support based solely on your belief that it exists.

If you truly believe this to be the case, then rally them to come out and support what you want. I assure you that if they do, policy will change based on consensus of the expanded body of participation. However, we can only operate on the consensus of those who voice an opinion. It is impossible to count support or opposition from those who do not voice it.

This is true in any deliberative body and in any policy process of which I am aware. There is simply no viable or accurate way to measure the opinions of those who choose not to voice an opinion.

Owen

> On Dec 18, 2014, at 09:27 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
> 
> Maybe a majority of the vocal community does, but I doubt if you add in all members of the community who do not comment and all the members of the community that only hold legacy allocations, I suspect that might not be the case.  I think the legacy community is speaking volumes by not participating by commenting in this forum.  
> 
> 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: Gary Buhrmaster [mailto:gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:12 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: Owen DeLong; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
> 
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>> 
>> All of those stats are interesting but they are not what is important here.  What is important is how many small Orgs that applied for the minimum allocation (as it was defined at the time of the allocation request) since ARIN was chartered were denied because of needs policy.
>> 
>> I don?t know what that number is but if it is greater than zero, it shouldn?t have happened!  ARIN?s Mission is to Advance the Internet, not to stifle it.
> 
> While there is clearly support by some for your position advocating needless number allocations, the majority of the community supports a review to insure that the allocations are actually advancing the Internet, and not just throwing numbers around to whomever asks, whatever their plans (or lack thereof).



From narten at us.ibm.com  Fri Dec 19 00:53:03 2014
From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:53:03 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net
Message-ID: <201412190553.sBJ5r30o000821@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>

Total of 48 messages in the last 7 days.
 
script run at: Fri Dec 19 00:53:03 EST 2014
 
    Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
 29.17% |   14 | 46.03% |   572354 | sryerse at eclipse-networks.com
 12.50% |    6 | 23.82% |   296162 | owen at delong.com
  6.25% |    3 |  7.44% |    92534 | billdarte at gmail.com
  6.25% |    3 |  2.39% |    29662 | mueller at syr.edu
  4.17% |    2 |  3.98% |    49463 | tedm at ipinc.net
  4.17% |    2 |  3.57% |    44350 | hannigan at gmail.com
  6.25% |    3 |  1.46% |    18132 | jrhett at netconsonance.com
  4.17% |    2 |  1.68% |    20925 | athompso at athompso.net
  4.17% |    2 |  1.06% |    13175 | ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
  2.08% |    1 |  3.11% |    38727 | kkargel at polartel.com
  4.17% |    2 |  0.92% |    11395 | ppml at rs.seastrom.com
  2.08% |    1 |  0.77% |     9541 | jcurran at arin.net
  2.08% |    1 |  0.61% |     7564 | ikiris at gmail.com
  2.08% |    1 |  0.59% |     7378 | info at arin.net
  2.08% |    1 |  0.58% |     7274 | dogwallah at gmail.com
  2.08% |    1 |  0.53% |     6642 | narten at us.ibm.com
  2.08% |    1 |  0.53% |     6565 | sethm at rollernet.us
  2.08% |    1 |  0.53% |     6541 | gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com
  2.08% |    1 |  0.41% |     5137 | bcornett at servlet.com
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
100.00% |   48 |100.00% |  1243521 | Total



From Keith at jcc.com  Fri Dec 19 10:00:41 2014
From: Keith at jcc.com (Keith W. Hare)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:00:41 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B38D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net
	works.com><0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com><5B9E90747FA2974
	D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CAMfXtQwj_-=1rm5rSq0LD+VbD2_mu9JWZEx2fyL5siTV-O4xmQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B38D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <62D20B771F8F9C4EA8AEE574FF38696287A14BD7AA@mercury.jcc.com>

Steve,

As a legacy resource holder (we have a /24 assigned in 1991), I've been following this list for quite a while. Mostly I follow it silently, but on occasion I spout off.

I am generally in favor of the justification requirements for all IPv4 allocations/assignments although I haven't actually had to justify an IPv4 request under the current policies so I don't know how difficult the process really is.

I do know that know that justifying an ASN assignment earlier this year was pretty easy. (does that mean that I no longer fit into "members of the community that only hold legacy allocations"?)

Keith W. Hare
JCC Consulting, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:27 PM
To: Gary Buhrmaster
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness

Maybe a majority of the vocal community does, but I doubt if you add in all members of the community who do not comment and all the members of the community that only hold legacy allocations, I suspect that might not be the case.  I think the legacy community is speaking volumes by not participating by commenting in this forum.  

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: Gary Buhrmaster [mailto:gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:12 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Owen DeLong; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>
> All of those stats are interesting but they are not what is important here.  What is important is how many small Orgs that applied for the minimum allocation (as it was defined at the time of the allocation request) since ARIN was chartered were denied because of needs policy.
>
> I don?t know what that number is but if it is greater than zero, it shouldn?t have happened!  ARIN?s Mission is to Advance the Internet, not to stifle it.

While there is clearly support by some for your position advocating needless number allocations, the majority of the community supports a review to insure that the allocations are actually advancing the Internet, and not just throwing numbers around to whomever asks, whatever their plans (or lack thereof).
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage 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 Dec 19 11:08:17 2014
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 08:08:17 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B38D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net
	works.com><0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com><5B9E90747FA2974
	D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CAMfXtQwj_-=1rm5rSq0LD+VbD2_mu9JWZEx2fyL5siTV-O4xmQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B38D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <54944D71.10204@ipinc.net>

The Legacy community mostly doesn't exist.

While there are some legacy orgs that have large amounts, and some
smaller ones that have small allocations, who are still using their 
numbers, there are a large number of small allocations out there that 
were abandoned years ago and ARIN has not reclaimed.

Ted

On 12/18/2014 9:27 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> Maybe a majority of the vocal community does, but I doubt if you add in all members of the community who do not comment and all the members of the community that only hold legacy allocations, I suspect that might not be the case.  I think the legacy community is speaking volumes by not participating by commenting in this forum.
>
> 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: Gary Buhrmaster [mailto:gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:12 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: Owen DeLong; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Steven Ryerse<SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>  wrote:
>>
>> All of those stats are interesting but they are not what is important here.  What is important is how many small Orgs that applied for the minimum allocation (as it was defined at the time of the allocation request) since ARIN was chartered were denied because of needs policy.
>>
>> I don?t know what that number is but if it is greater than zero, it shouldn?t have happened!  ARIN?s Mission is to Advance the Internet, not to stifle it.
>
> While there is clearly support by some for your position advocating needless number allocations, the majority of the community supports a review to insure that the allocations are actually advancing the Internet, and not just throwing numbers around to whomever asks, whatever their plans (or lack thereof).
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage 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 Dec 19 11:23:02 2014
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 08:23:02 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net
	works.com><0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com><5B9E90747FA2974
	D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<20141218165833.GC33386@mx1.yitter.info>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net>

First point here Steven is you have completely ignored and failed to 
respond to my first comment regarding why ARIN is the way it is - 
because it exists in a capitalistic society - because you have no answer 
for that.

I do not really believe for a second that you really want an honest 
debate on this issue.  What you are doing is sitting back and cherry 
picking weak arguments to respond to, and ignoring strong ones.  So I am 
not going to waste much more time with you on this.

But I will say that your comment:

" If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that really make it OK 
to start denying small Orgs .com domain name requests?"

is one of the most ignorant I've seen on this list in quite a while.

The DNS system exists to make IP addresses that are hard to remember,
replaced by domain names that are easy to remember.  The average English 
speaking adult knows about 50,000 English words.  There's over 100 
million .com domain names registered at this point.  We have far and 
away exceeded the number of English .com one word domain names that an 
average person would know.

Therefore we have long ago "run out" of .com domain names.  Oh sure, you 
can still register new .com domain names that are nonsense like 
fdgcjghhgeafvrar.com or you can make up elaborate long sentences like 
thisismynewdomainanemisntitkewel.com and register those names, but 
neither of those meets the bar of being an easy to remember name.  They 
are, in fact, harder to remember than the IP addresses that they are 
supposed to make "easy to remember"

There

On 12/18/2014 9:15 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> Thanks for your comments!  Actually the total number of possible .com permutations is limited too.  IPv4 addresses and .com domain names are both just Internet resources that Internet users need to use the Internet.  Obviously there are less IPv4 addresses than .com combinations, but IPv4 is still the only way to access most of the Internet.  While ARIN has resources to allocate - I'm absolutely fine limiting the size of an allocation to match the size of an Org and their network, but I'm not fine with denying an Org any resources.
>
> Also IPv4 cannot somehow be saved by conservation.  Regardless of any policy, ARIN will run out of IPv4 probably within the next year.  If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that really make it OK to start denying small Orgs .com domain name requests?
>
> 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 Andrew Sullivan
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:59 AM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 04:35:41PM +0000, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>
>> If it is not OK to deny the Minimum domain (available) name to an Org, then it isn?t OK to deny an Org the Minimum  IP allocation.  They are both Internet resources.
>>
>
> The analogy seems faulty to me.  The number space is finite (and in the case of v4, not very large).  The name space in any given registry is admittedly not infinite, since (1) it's limited to labels 63 octets long from the LDH repertoire and (2) useful mnemonics are generally shorter than 63 octets and usually a wordlike thing in some natural language.  There are, however, lots of registries (more all the time!
> Thanks, ICANN!); and last I checked neither info nor biz was anything close to the size (or utility) of com, even though they've both been around since 2001 and have rather similar registration rules.  So, there is an argument in favour of tight rules for allocation of v4 numbers that is not available in the name case.
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.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.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


From michael at linuxmagic.com  Fri Dec 19 11:29:01 2014
From: michael at linuxmagic.com (Michael Peddemors)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 08:29:01 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net	works.com><0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com><5B9E90747FA2974	D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>	<20141218165833.GC33386@mx1.yitter.info>	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <5494524D.7000601@linuxmagic.com>

On 14-12-19 08:23 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> is one of the most ignorant I've seen on this list in quite a while.

Shut it down please... this is becoming a flame war..

Don't troll, and don't respond..


-- 
"Catch the Magic of Linux..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc.
Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca
"LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada

This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely
those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company.


From tedm at ipinc.net  Fri Dec 19 12:55:37 2014
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 09:55:37 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <5494524D.7000601@linuxmagic.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net	works.com><0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com><5B9E90747FA2974	D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>	<20141218165833.GC33386@mx1.yitter.info>	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net> <5494524D.7000601@linuxmagic.com>
Message-ID: <54946699.1040408@ipinc.net>



On 12/19/2014 8:29 AM, Michael Peddemors wrote:
> On 14-12-19 08:23 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> is one of the most ignorant I've seen on this list in quite a while.
>
> Shut it down please... this is becoming a flame war..
>
> Don't troll, and don't respond..
>
>

I don't think you have to worry about it - as I already said - he isn't 
responding to any solid arguments against his assertion.

Ted


From jcurran at arin.net  Fri Dec 19 14:07:38 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 19:07:38 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B38D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net
	works.com> <0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974
	D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CAMfXtQwj_-=1rm5rSq0LD+VbD2_mu9JWZEx2fyL5siTV-O4xmQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B38D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <CFF0AFA2-DE4A-46C4-B13E-BCB201CF105A@corp.arin.net>

On Dec 18, 2014, at 12:27 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
> 
> Maybe a majority of the vocal community does, but I doubt if you add in all members of the community who do not comment and all the members of the community that only hold legacy allocations, I suspect that might not be the case.  I think the legacy community is speaking volumes by not participating by commenting in this forum.  

Steven -

Given that anyone can participate in the discussion (i.e. there is no requirement 
to have any agreement with ARIN or be an ARIN member) and further that it would only 
take a couple of dozen additional participants to materially affect the outcome of 
the policy development process, one can only surmise that perceived need for policy
change is relatively small compared to the effort to participate.  We've done quite 
a bit to reduce the overhead of participating (e.g. remote participation options),
but it is still incumbent up to those who perceive the need for policy changes to 
to participate in the process.  Note that if even a fraction of a percent of the
legacy address holders felt it necessary to become involved for a particular policy 
change, then it would happen.

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From sethm at rollernet.us  Fri Dec 19 14:14:16 2014
From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 11:14:16 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <54946699.1040408@ipinc.net>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net	works.com><0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com><5B9E90747FA2974	D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>	<20141218165833.GC33386@mx1.yitter.info>	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>	<549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net>
	<5494524D.7000601@linuxmagic.com> <54946699.1040408@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <54947908.6070704@rollernet.us>

On 12/19/14, 9:55, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> I don't think you have to worry about it - as I already said - he isn't
> responding to any solid arguments against his assertion.

My assessment is continued hurt feelings over being rejected on a 
resource request in the past.

~Seth


From owen at delong.com  Fri Dec 19 15:32:24 2014
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 12:32:24 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <54944D71.10204@ipinc.net>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net
	works.com> <0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974
	D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CAMfXtQwj_-=1rm5rSq0LD+VbD2_mu9JWZEx2fyL5siTV-O4xmQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B38D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<54944D71.10204@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <28611A4E-0381-449D-BC33-A22EFD9B20B2@delong.com>

Do you have evidence to support any specific numbers being abandoned?

Have you presented that evidence to ARIN?

It's easy to make claims like this because they are impossible to prove or disprove in most cases.

If you have actual evidence of specific abandoned resources to support your claim, please provide that data to ARIN. I'm fairly certain that they would act to reclaim abandoned addresses with sufficient evidence.

Owen

> On Dec 19, 2014, at 08:08 , Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> 
> The Legacy community mostly doesn't exist.
> 
> While there are some legacy orgs that have large amounts, and some
> smaller ones that have small allocations, who are still using their numbers, there are a large number of small allocations out there that were abandoned years ago and ARIN has not reclaimed.
> 
> Ted
> 
> On 12/18/2014 9:27 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>> Maybe a majority of the vocal community does, but I doubt if you add in all members of the community who do not comment and all the members of the community that only hold legacy allocations, I suspect that might not be the case.  I think the legacy community is speaking volumes by not participating by commenting in this forum.
>> 
>> 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: Gary Buhrmaster [mailto:gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:12 PM
>> To: Steven Ryerse
>> Cc: Owen DeLong; arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>> 
>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Steven Ryerse<SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> All of those stats are interesting but they are not what is important here.  What is important is how many small Orgs that applied for the minimum allocation (as it was defined at the time of the allocation request) since ARIN was chartered were denied because of needs policy.
>>> 
>>> I don?t know what that number is but if it is greater than zero, it shouldn?t have happened!  ARIN?s Mission is to Advance the Internet, not to stifle it.
>> 
>> While there is clearly support by some for your position advocating needless number allocations, the majority of the community supports a review to insure that the allocations are actually advancing the Internet, and not just throwing numbers around to whomever asks, whatever their plans (or lack thereof).
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage 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  Fri Dec 19 16:13:16 2014
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 21:13:16 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxjQD_y1HUcEhJ7mp8MmLeii4oAgEWGn0FhDJwDp+6Dsuw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com><CACAaNxj1ftwpX
	+a7_FBo_KH1gJmdrtvXpBosdBHufyhxWv4ysw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AE2A@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CACAaNxjQD_y1HUcEhJ7mp8MmLeii4oAgEWGn0FhDJwDp+6Dsuw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54410B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

The fly in the ointment in your argument is that there are multiple .com domain registrars and an Org can go to a 2nd or 3rd one if they were to be denied by the 1st one.  ARIN however, is the monopoly for our Region so an Org does not have the ability to go to another Official IP resource registrar in our Region.  Therefore, as a monopoly, ARIN must award at least a minimum allocation to any Org or they will be shut out altogether ? and of course that would be stifling the Internet and not advancing the Internet which is ARINs mission.  We need to fix this!

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

From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:22 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness


Steven,

I agree it is a deeply flawed analogy.
However, I will answer the question with a yes.
It is OK for a Registry Operator to deny access to a name based on whatever Registration policy is in place.
I know this as I work for a Registry Operator and the basis of our TLD is that we do deny names to people who do not meet our Standards/Eligibility Requirement or AUP.  Registrars cannot sell a name to an entity that hasn't been approved by the Registry Operator.

--
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel



On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
So I have to ask you the bottom line question:

Is it OK for an Organized community of existing Domain Name holders to deny a small Org the Minimum number of Domain Names from an Official Registrar?


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

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

From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com<mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 5:47 PM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: Steven Ryerse; arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness

I have to agree with Owen, I just got my first v4 request from ARIN approved for a small org.
Wasn't hard, wasn't burdensome.
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com<mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
I'm sorry, but your argument is utterly specious.


--
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141219/08940b8b/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/20141219/08940b8b/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1468 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141219/08940b8b/attachment-0001.jpg>

From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Fri Dec 19 16:13:57 2014
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 21:13:57 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <9259666C-B441-4FEF-A356-6745E43A6944@delong.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net
	works.com> <0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<9259666C-B441-4FEF-A356-6745E43A6944@delong.com>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A544177@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

Owen wrote: However, IMHO, we are at a point with IPv4 where every address allocated or assigned is an address effectively taken away from someone else. Therefore, it is only prudent to make sure that each address allocated or assigned goes to an organization with a genuine need for those addresses.

Steven wrote:  Another way of saying what you stated above is that it is OK to deny allocations to a small Org with limited resources so that larger ones with deeper pockets can get them.  I don?t know if you prefer it to be that way, but that is the way it is in real life for a small Org.  That is what I am fighting to change.

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

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

From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:04 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Kevin Kargel; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: Internet Fairness


On Dec 18, 2014, at 08:35 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:

All of those stats are interesting but they are not what is important here.  What is important is how many small Orgs that applied for the minimum allocation (as it was defined at the time of the allocation request) since ARIN was chartered were denied because of needs policy.

I disagree. The number of orgs denied by previous iterations of the policy are no longer relevant. What is relevant is experience with the current policy. Continuing to focus on the past results of problems in policy which have already been corrected in the policy doesn't do anything for anyone. If there are still flaws in the current policy, then let's examine what is happening in those cases.


I don?t know what that number is but if it is greater than zero, it shouldn?t have happened!  ARIN?s Mission is to Advance the Internet, not to stifle it.

I don't agree. There are lots of cases where an organization could present a desire for addresses without a need. Handing out the limited remaining resources to such organizations would be a disservice to the community and to the internet. You may not share my opinion in this area and we can (and likely will) agree to disagree. However, IMHO, we are at a point with IPv4 where every address allocated or assigned is an address effectively taken away from someone else. Therefore, it is only prudent to make sure that each address allocated or assigned goes to an organization with a genuine need for those addresses.


If it is not OK to deny the Minimum domain (available) name to an Org, then it isn?t OK to deny an Org the Minimum  IP allocation.  They are both Internet resources.

This is an absurd apples and oranges comparison.

Let's try making something a bit more parallel...

Is it OK to deny people 2-letter SLDs? Is it OK to deny people TLDs? What about 3-letter SLDs?

There are only 3.2 Billion IPv4 unicast addresses. We can't make more. We can't continue giving them out when we run out.

To the best of my knowledge, all possible 2 letter domains in COM, NET, and ORG are already registered. Therefore, anyone attempting to apply for a 2-letter SLD in those zones will be denied.

While ICANN is now handing out far more TLDs than I believe to be good for the internet, even their incredible burst of greed over sanity does not allow every applicant who wants one to get a TLD.

ALL resources have some form of policy restriction on them and some level of gatekeeping on how they are allocated.

Very soon, ARIN will be at a point where they will receive applications that will not result in a choice of approve/deny vs. which application gets space and which does not. Every allocation that goes to an organization without need at this point literally increases the number of applicants with need who will be denied when that time arrives.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141219/7b5ecd57/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1235 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141219/7b5ecd57/attachment.jpg>

From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Fri Dec 19 16:24:37 2014
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 21:24:37 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <20141218174826.GF33386@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net
	works.com><0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com><5B9E90747FA2974
	D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><20141218165833.G
	C33386@mx1.yitter.info><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<20141218174826.GF33386@mx1.yitter.info>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54421F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

You bring up an excellent point about policies changing.  Maybe things would improve for everyone if the folks in this community who help set polices, have those same policies applied to everyone including them - for both new allocations AND renewal of ALL allocations.  

Then every year the folks who have resources would have to go thru the needs testing again to make sure they are actually using the resources per the then current policy.  I suspect some of the needs testing policies would change pretty fast if all renewal requests had to comply just like new requests.  

What's good for the goose is good for the gander!  

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 Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:48 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 05:15:46PM +0000, Steven Ryerse wrote:

> .com permutations is limited too.

Yes, and my mail pointed out how.

> IPv4 addresses and .com domain names are both just Internet resources 
> that Internet users need to use the Internet.

They're different kinds of resources, though.  Protocol parameters are also just Internet resources, but there are different policies for how you get a DNS RRTYPE number, a UDP or TCP port number, and so on; and these policies are different to how one gets an IP address or a domain name.  Saying, "Just resources, therefore they should have the same policy," effectively claims that there are no differences between these kinds of resources; I claim that's false.

> Also IPv4 cannot somehow be saved by conservation.  Regardless of any 
> policy, ARIN will run out of IPv4 probably within the next year.
> If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that really make it OK 
> to start denying small Orgs .com domain name requests?

The argument for the minimum allocation policy is not "size of org", but "amount of use given the allocation and minimum allocation size given the Internet routing system".  I don't have any trouble imagining that a name registry approaching identifier exhaustion could adopt a policy that domain names in the registry would be required to be used (or the registration would be revoked).  In fact, some name registries do have separate allocation policies for "reservation" and "registration".  Xxx does this, for instance (a very effective revenue-plumping move, I am told).  Of course, the differences between naming and numbering probably mean that such a restriction in the name case would be silly except in particular cases (like xxx).  And that's sort of the point: the analogy isn't doing the work you want here, because the differences between names and numbers means that policy for one of them is not good in the other case.  For example, number resources can't be handed out one at a time for the sake of the routing system, but domain names are _always_ allocated that way.

Best regards,

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.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 SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Fri Dec 19 16:28:06 2014
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 21:28:06 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <535D0B74-4969-4FA3-B496-A4C4ECCC68A8@delong.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net
	works.com> <0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974
	D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CAMfXtQwj_-=1rm5rSq0LD+VbD2_mu9JWZEx2fyL5siTV-O4xmQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B38D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<535D0B74-4969-4FA3-B496-A4C4ECCC68A8@delong.com>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54438E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

But you ignore the reality of life in a small Org that has limited resources.  They are spending all their time just trying to keep their doors open and don't have the extra time to participate even if they want to.  I think this community is certainly capable of doing their fiduciary responsibility by making sure the needs of small Orgs are met just like is done for larger Orgs.  I do see this community doing some of that but I think more needs to be done.  

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, December 18, 2014 12:47 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Gary Buhrmaster; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness

It's always fun when people depend on nameless faceless silent majorities to bolster their argument.

Bottom line, in this as in all things, decisions are made by those who show up. If the members of the community who do not comment and/or only hold legacy allocations continue to not speak up, then it is impossible for us to consider their support based solely on your belief that it exists.

If you truly believe this to be the case, then rally them to come out and support what you want. I assure you that if they do, policy will change based on consensus of the expanded body of participation. However, we can only operate on the consensus of those who voice an opinion. It is impossible to count support or opposition from those who do not voice it.

This is true in any deliberative body and in any policy process of which I am aware. There is simply no viable or accurate way to measure the opinions of those who choose not to voice an opinion.

Owen

> On Dec 18, 2014, at 09:27 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
> 
> Maybe a majority of the vocal community does, but I doubt if you add in all members of the community who do not comment and all the members of the community that only hold legacy allocations, I suspect that might not be the case.  I think the legacy community is speaking volumes by not participating by commenting in this forum.  
> 
> 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: Gary Buhrmaster [mailto:gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:12 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: Owen DeLong; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
> 
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>> 
>> All of those stats are interesting but they are not what is important here.  What is important is how many small Orgs that applied for the minimum allocation (as it was defined at the time of the allocation request) since ARIN was chartered were denied because of needs policy.
>> 
>> I don?t know what that number is but if it is greater than zero, it shouldn?t have happened!  ARIN?s Mission is to Advance the Internet, not to stifle it.
> 
> While there is clearly support by some for your position advocating needless number allocations, the majority of the community supports a review to insure that the allocations are actually advancing the Internet, and not just throwing numbers around to whomever asks, whatever their plans (or lack thereof).


From owen at delong.com  Fri Dec 19 16:54:59 2014
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 13:54:59 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54421F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net
	works.com> <0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974
	D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<20141218165833.G C33386@mx1.yitter.info>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<20141218174826.GF33386@mx1.yitter.info>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54421F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <5A9A8836-7FB1-460B-A5A1-38555D7C7739@delong.com>

Put it in a policy proposal. I would support that.

Owen

> On Dec 19, 2014, at 13:24 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
> 
> You bring up an excellent point about policies changing.  Maybe things would improve for everyone if the folks in this community who help set polices, have those same policies applied to everyone including them - for both new allocations AND renewal of ALL allocations.  
> 
> Then every year the folks who have resources would have to go thru the needs testing again to make sure they are actually using the resources per the then current policy.  I suspect some of the needs testing policies would change pretty fast if all renewal requests had to comply just like new requests.  
> 
> What's good for the goose is good for the gander!  
> 
> 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 Andrew Sullivan
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:48 PM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
> 
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 05:15:46PM +0000, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> 
>> .com permutations is limited too.
> 
> Yes, and my mail pointed out how.
> 
>> IPv4 addresses and .com domain names are both just Internet resources 
>> that Internet users need to use the Internet.
> 
> They're different kinds of resources, though.  Protocol parameters are also just Internet resources, but there are different policies for how you get a DNS RRTYPE number, a UDP or TCP port number, and so on; and these policies are different to how one gets an IP address or a domain name.  Saying, "Just resources, therefore they should have the same policy," effectively claims that there are no differences between these kinds of resources; I claim that's false.
> 
>> Also IPv4 cannot somehow be saved by conservation.  Regardless of any 
>> policy, ARIN will run out of IPv4 probably within the next year.
>> If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that really make it OK 
>> to start denying small Orgs .com domain name requests?
> 
> The argument for the minimum allocation policy is not "size of org", but "amount of use given the allocation and minimum allocation size given the Internet routing system".  I don't have any trouble imagining that a name registry approaching identifier exhaustion could adopt a policy that domain names in the registry would be required to be used (or the registration would be revoked).  In fact, some name registries do have separate allocation policies for "reservation" and "registration".  Xxx does this, for instance (a very effective revenue-plumping move, I am told).  Of course, the differences between naming and numbering probably mean that such a restriction in the name case would be silly except in particular cases (like xxx).  And that's sort of the point: the analogy isn't doing the work you want here, because the differences between names and numbers means that policy for one of them is not good in the other case.  For example, number resources can't be handed out one at a time for the sake of the routing system, but domain names are _always_ allocated that way.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> A
> 
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.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.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



From owen at delong.com  Fri Dec 19 16:53:40 2014
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 13:53:40 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A544177@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net
	works.com> <0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<9259666C-B441-4FEF-A356-6745E43A6944@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A544177@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <E1A838E6-BFDE-48FB-9F3F-39B6F688C4AF@delong.com>


> On Dec 19, 2014, at 13:13 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
> 
> Owen wrote: However, IMHO, we are at a point with IPv4 where every address allocated or assigned is an address effectively taken away from someone else. Therefore, it is only prudent to make sure that each address allocated or assigned goes to an organization with a genuine need for those addresses.
>  
> Steven wrote:  Another way of saying what you stated above is that it is OK to deny allocations to a small Org with limited resources so that larger ones with deeper pockets can get them.  I don?t know if you prefer it to be that way, but that is the way it is in real life for a small Org.  That is what I am fighting to change. 

No, that is not what I said at all.

A small organization which genuinely needs addresses is equally entitled to them as a large one.

The policy requirements are not about preventing one class of organization from getting addresses so that another class may have them. They are about making sure that the resources are allocated fairly according to need. The transfer policy (which, if you will recall, I generally opposed) could be said to be about moving resources to the organizations with the deepest pockets, but the free pool allocation and assignment policies most definitely are not.

In fact, one could make the argument that since most larger organizations tend to fall into the ISP category and assignment policy is now more liberal than allocation policy (12 months instead of 3 months, for example), that current policy actually slightly favors smaller organizations over larger ones with deeper pockets.

I know that we strive to make policy as fair as possible for every size organization.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141219/7f9289a1/attachment.htm>

From ajs at anvilwalrusden.com  Fri Dec 19 17:18:57 2014
From: ajs at anvilwalrusden.com (Andrew Sullivan)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 17:18:57 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54410B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
	<CACAaNxj1ftwpX+a7_FBo_KH1gJmdrtvXpBosdBHufyhxWv4ysw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AE2A@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CACAaNxjQD_y1HUcEhJ7mp8MmLeii4oAgEWGn0FhDJwDp+6Dsuw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54410B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <20141219221857.GP40934@mx1.yitter.info>

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 09:13:16PM +0000, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> The fly in the ointment in your argument is that there are multiple .com domain registrars and an Org can go to a 2nd or 3rd one if they were to be denied by the 1st one. 

I think you have confused the roles of the registry and registrar
here.  ARIN is a registry.  It stands to its number space as Verisign
stands to the com zone.  No registrar would be able to register a name
in com in violation of Verisign's policies, because there's only one
registry.

I think you need to abandon this analogy.  It is doing your argument
(which seems weak to me anyway) no good at all.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com


From alh-ietf at tndh.net  Fri Dec 19 17:40:50 2014
From: alh-ietf at tndh.net (Tony Hain)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:40:50 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54438E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net	works.com>
	<0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>	<5B9E90747FA2974	D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>	<CAMfXtQwj_-=1rm5rSq0LD+VbD2_mu9JWZEx2fyL5siTV-O4xmQ@mail.gmail.com>	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B38D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>	<535D0B74-4969-4FA3-B496-A4C4ECCC68A8@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54438E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <052c01d01bdc$d70e0640$852a12c0$@tndh.net>

Steven,

As another small org, I agree with you completely about the absurdly arbitrary nature of the policies that are biased in favor of the large organizations. I also advocate that ARIN should allocate all of their remaining IPv4 pool immediately, with the only requirement being that someone asks. They can have as many addresses as the number of independent web forms they fill out, but every allocation MUST be done as a /32 and processed in order of request so the potential for aggregation is limited.

Like it or not, IPv4 allocations have always been needs based. Despite all the crap you might read about pre-RIR allocations being done with wild abandon, as one of the handful of people that actually did the needs assessments before the RIR system was created, I personally turned down requests for large blocks when smaller ones would serve the need, and recommended larger blocks than requested in some cases.  At the same time, no matter how much noise the ARIN community makes about "we don't talk about routing", this allocation needs assessment has always been about routing slots, because the only real reason you "NEED" an address is to have it routed. Otherwise it is just a number and who cares if it is registered publicly that you requested it. Pick a number and use it in your routers; the world will not care if it is used somewhere else. The bottom line is that access to the allocated resource requires a routing slot, and you need to justify that. The participants from the large organizations have biased the policies to keep the size of the routing system within the constraints of their budgets, but as far as I am concerned that is as arbitrary as anything else, and getting them to dump IPv4 is even more cost effective.

To a first order this is where the ARIN/nanog split model is completely broken. The other regions have a more integrated approach to operations and policy discussions, so it is easier to see the balance and trade-offs about how the resources are managed. 

Seriously, I believe ARIN should get out of the IPv4 business NOW... The world should have moved on 10 years ago so this death-spiral runout tail BS would have never happened, but here we are. The only sane way to get past the never-ending policy tweaking is to hand the remaining IPv4 resource back to IANA and let the other RIRs deal with it. If a small org is having a problem getting IPv6 resources, I care and want to help fix that. If they believe they need more than a single IPv4 to support the dwindling number of XP machines that have IPv6 turned off by default, they are in need of an education, and probably some guidance on how to build and deploy IPv6 enabled apps and infrastructure. 

Full disclosure: Some of us on this list happen to be in the business of helping small orgs with IPv6 awareness & migration. 

Tony
CEO
Hain Global Consulting, Inc.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Steven Ryerse
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 1:28 PM
> To: 'Owen DeLong'
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
> 
> But you ignore the reality of life in a small Org that has limited resources.
> They are spending all their time just trying to keep their doors open and
> don't have the extra time to participate even if they want to.  I think this
> community is certainly capable of doing their fiduciary responsibility by
> making sure the needs of small Orgs are met just like is done for larger Orgs.
> I do see this community doing some of that but I think more needs to be
> done.
> 
> 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, December 18, 2014 12:47 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: Gary Buhrmaster; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
> 
> It's always fun when people depend on nameless faceless silent majorities to
> bolster their argument.
> 
> Bottom line, in this as in all things, decisions are made by those who show up.
> If the members of the community who do not comment and/or only hold
> legacy allocations continue to not speak up, then it is impossible for us to
> consider their support based solely on your belief that it exists.
> 
> If you truly believe this to be the case, then rally them to come out and
> support what you want. I assure you that if they do, policy will change based
> on consensus of the expanded body of participation. However, we can only
> operate on the consensus of those who voice an opinion. It is impossible to
> count support or opposition from those who do not voice it.
> 
> This is true in any deliberative body and in any policy process of which I am
> aware. There is simply no viable or accurate way to measure the opinions of
> those who choose not to voice an opinion.
> 
> Owen
> 
> > On Dec 18, 2014, at 09:27 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-
> networks.com> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe a majority of the vocal community does, but I doubt if you add in all
> members of the community who do not comment and all the members of
> the community that only hold legacy allocations, I suspect that might not be
> the case.  I think the legacy community is speaking volumes by not
> participating by commenting in this forum.
> >
> > 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: Gary Buhrmaster [mailto:gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:12 PM
> > To: Steven Ryerse
> > Cc: Owen DeLong; arin-ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-
> networks.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> All of those stats are interesting but they are not what is important here.
> What is important is how many small Orgs that applied for the minimum
> allocation (as it was defined at the time of the allocation request) since ARIN
> was chartered were denied because of needs policy.
> >>
> >> I don?t know what that number is but if it is greater than zero, it shouldn?t
> have happened!  ARIN?s Mission is to Advance the Internet, not to stifle it.
> >
> > While there is clearly support by some for your position advocating
> needless number allocations, the majority of the community supports a
> review to insure that the allocations are actually advancing the Internet, and
> not just throwing numbers around to whomever asks, whatever their plans
> (or lack thereof).
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage 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  Fri Dec 19 18:59:03 2014
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 23:59:03 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net
	works.com><0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com><5B9E90747FA2974
	D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><20141218165833.G
	C33386@mx1.yitter.info><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

I'm not being ignorant I am trying to get to bottom of the discussion.  I wish ARINs resources were issued by ARIN in a capitalistic manner.  Then as long as an Org is willing to pay the going rate resources could be acquired guaranteed as long as there are sellers.  There is no needs testing in that model just supply and demand and the ability to pay.  How do we change to the Capitalistic model from what we got now?  

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 Ted Mittelstaedt
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 11:23 AM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness

First point here Steven is you have completely ignored and failed to respond to my first comment regarding why ARIN is the way it is - because it exists in a capitalistic society - because you have no answer for that.

I do not really believe for a second that you really want an honest debate on this issue.  What you are doing is sitting back and cherry picking weak arguments to respond to, and ignoring strong ones.  So I am not going to waste much more time with you on this.

But I will say that your comment:

" If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that really make it OK to start denying small Orgs .com domain name requests?"

is one of the most ignorant I've seen on this list in quite a while.

The DNS system exists to make IP addresses that are hard to remember, replaced by domain names that are easy to remember.  The average English speaking adult knows about 50,000 English words.  There's over 100 million .com domain names registered at this point.  We have far and away exceeded the number of English .com one word domain names that an average person would know.

Therefore we have long ago "run out" of .com domain names.  Oh sure, you can still register new .com domain names that are nonsense like fdgcjghhgeafvrar.com or you can make up elaborate long sentences like thisismynewdomainanemisntitkewel.com and register those names, but neither of those meets the bar of being an easy to remember name.  They are, in fact, harder to remember than the IP addresses that they are supposed to make "easy to remember"

There

On 12/18/2014 9:15 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> Thanks for your comments!  Actually the total number of possible .com permutations is limited too.  IPv4 addresses and .com domain names are both just Internet resources that Internet users need to use the Internet.  Obviously there are less IPv4 addresses than .com combinations, but IPv4 is still the only way to access most of the Internet.  While ARIN has resources to allocate - I'm absolutely fine limiting the size of an allocation to match the size of an Org and their network, but I'm not fine with denying an Org any resources.
>
> Also IPv4 cannot somehow be saved by conservation.  Regardless of any policy, ARIN will run out of IPv4 probably within the next year.  If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that really make it OK to start denying small Orgs .com domain name requests?
>
> 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 Andrew Sullivan
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:59 AM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 04:35:41PM +0000, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>
>> If it is not OK to deny the Minimum domain (available) name to an Org, then it isn?t OK to deny an Org the Minimum  IP allocation.  They are both Internet resources.
>>
>
> The analogy seems faulty to me.  The number space is finite (and in the case of v4, not very large).  The name space in any given registry is admittedly not infinite, since (1) it's limited to labels 63 octets long from the LDH repertoire and (2) useful mnemonics are generally shorter than 63 octets and usually a wordlike thing in some natural language.  There are, however, lots of registries (more all the time!
> Thanks, ICANN!); and last I checked neither info nor biz was anything close to the size (or utility) of com, even though they've both been around since 2001 and have rather similar registration rules.  So, there is an argument in favour of tight rules for allocation of v4 numbers that is not available in the name case.
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.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.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage 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 mike at iptrading.com  Fri Dec 19 20:05:04 2014
From: mike at iptrading.com (Mike Burns)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 20:05:04 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><20141218165833.GC33386@mx1.yitter.info><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <21801226601340C3A31F53AC68092E15@ncsscfoipoxes4>

  How do we change to the Capitalistic model from what we got now?
>
> Steven L Ryerse


Thanks for the interesting discussion.
Might I say in answer to your question above that a step towards that change 
would be 2014-14?
Small operators could purchase a /24 without a needs test, yet the needs 
test remains in place for large transfers which some feel could imperil the 
market.

And in this discussion there was suprising accord between Steven and Owen 
relating to the proposal to impose annual needs testing on all resource 
holders. I would suggest that the trading market imposes the most effective 
ongoing needs-test of all.  By their nature, corporations who recognize 
unused but valuable and perishable assets in their possession will seek to 
monetize them. The gimlet eye of the corporate accountant works unceasingly 
to bring IPv4 addresses into efficient use through the transfer market in a 
way that vague ARIN threats never could. We should work to make that market 
more predictable and robust in order to best harness those efficiencies.


Long version of above, feel free to ignore:

2014-14 would remove much of the uncertainty in the market, since it would 
cover most transactions and allow the buyer and seller to particpate without 
the uncertainty introduced by third-party veto in the form of a failed 
needs-test. IPv4 transactions are still a novel idea outside a small group 
of people. Many international transactions have built-in levels of FUD which 
are high even before considering the novelty of the core transaction and the 
natural reluctance to wire an up-front international payment for an asset so 
virtual in nature.

Likewise for sellers, who are asked to initiate the transfer request with an 
entity (ARIN) which may or may not consummate the transaction, at its sole 
discretion. There is policy and procedure for the transfer of IPv4 resources 
when the request follows policy, but what procedure and policy is available 
to the seller if the transfer succeeds, but some contractual breach occurs 
between buyer and seller whose penalty is the reversion of rights to the 
Seller? Can the Seller sell his address rights under Net 30 terms, confident 
that ARIN (and potentially and coordinatedly APNIC) would revert Whois 
records to their original state if the breach could be demonstrated? Would 
that breach have to be demonstrated to a judge first, would ARIN respond 
only to a judge's order? Would ARIN respond to an Asian judge's order, or 
vice versa? FUD.

Can an IPv4 asset possibly function as security if it can not be reliably 
and predictably transferred? I know a small business that wanted to borrow 
some money and secure it with their IPv4 stock, and use the funds to grow 
their business (thus utilizing their IPv4 stock). But who would make the 
loan if they could never collect on the secured asset?

As a broker it would make transactions simpler and smoother for buyers if I 
could purchase a /16,  have it as inventory, and then sell in, say, /24s. 
Today, when buyers want a very small block it is hard for them to find a 
broker interested, because the size makes it not worth the broker's time. 
And when a seller comes to broker and wants to sell a /24, the same logic 
applies. Few sellers with /16s are willing to endure 256 transactions in 
order to monetize their block. Net result is wasted space and unmet need. 
But if the broker had /16 in inventory and could eliminate all costs 
involved with a Seller's participation, selling individual /24s might be 
profitable,  allowing the need of the smallest operator to be met. With 
2014-14 it could at least be attempted.

If all involved knew that the RIRs would be passive registrars of the 
transfers, FUD would be reduced and the market made more vital in my 
opinion.

Regards,
Mike













From hannigan at gmail.com  Fri Dec 19 20:12:13 2014
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 20:12:13 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <21801226601340C3A31F53AC68092E15@ncsscfoipoxes4>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<20141218165833.GC33386@mx1.yitter.info>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<21801226601340C3A31F53AC68092E15@ncsscfoipoxes4>
Message-ID: <9CFA900A-51E3-4339-81B1-78BAA56C223C@gmail.com>


Socialism dies from economic failure or revolution.  

Needs tests are dead. But beware the #IANA Transition. 

Best,

-M<



> On Dec 19, 2014, at 20:05, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
> 
> How do we change to the Capitalistic model from what we got now?
>> 
>> Steven L Ryerse
> 
> 
> Thanks for the interesting discussion.
> Might I say in answer to your question above that a step towards that change would be 2014-14?
> Small operators could purchase a /24 without a needs test, yet the needs test remains in place for large transfers which some feel could imperil the market.
> 
> And in this discussion there was suprising accord between Steven and Owen relating to the proposal to impose annual needs testing on all resource holders. I would suggest that the trading market imposes the most effective ongoing needs-test of all.  By their nature, corporations who recognize unused but valuable and perishable assets in their possession will seek to monetize them. The gimlet eye of the corporate accountant works unceasingly to bring IPv4 addresses into efficient use through the transfer market in a way that vague ARIN threats never could. We should work to make that market more predictable and robust in order to best harness those efficiencies.
> 
> 
> Long version of above, feel free to ignore:
> 
> 2014-14 would remove much of the uncertainty in the market, since it would cover most transactions and allow the buyer and seller to particpate without the uncertainty introduced by third-party veto in the form of a failed needs-test. IPv4 transactions are still a novel idea outside a small group of people. Many international transactions have built-in levels of FUD which are high even before considering the novelty of the core transaction and the natural reluctance to wire an up-front international payment for an asset so virtual in nature.
> 
> Likewise for sellers, who are asked to initiate the transfer request with an entity (ARIN) which may or may not consummate the transaction, at its sole discretion. There is policy and procedure for the transfer of IPv4 resources when the request follows policy, but what procedure and policy is available to the seller if the transfer succeeds, but some contractual breach occurs between buyer and seller whose penalty is the reversion of rights to the Seller? Can the Seller sell his address rights under Net 30 terms, confident that ARIN (and potentially and coordinatedly APNIC) would revert Whois records to their original state if the breach could be demonstrated? Would that breach have to be demonstrated to a judge first, would ARIN respond only to a judge's order? Would ARIN respond to an Asian judge's order, or vice versa? FUD.
> 
> Can an IPv4 asset possibly function as security if it can not be reliably and predictably transferred? I know a small business that wanted to borrow some money and secure it with their IPv4 stock, and use the funds to grow their business (thus utilizing their IPv4 stock). But who would make the loan if they could never collect on the secured asset?
> 
> As a broker it would make transactions simpler and smoother for buyers if I could purchase a /16,  have it as inventory, and then sell in, say, /24s. Today, when buyers want a very small block it is hard for them to find a broker interested, because the size makes it not worth the broker's time. And when a seller comes to broker and wants to sell a /24, the same logic applies. Few sellers with /16s are willing to endure 256 transactions in order to monetize their block. Net result is wasted space and unmet need. But if the broker had /16 in inventory and could eliminate all costs involved with a Seller's participation, selling individual /24s might be profitable,  allowing the need of the smallest operator to be met. With 2014-14 it could at least be attempted.
> 
> If all involved knew that the RIRs would be passive registrars of the transfers, FUD would be reduced and the market made more vital in my opinion.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage 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 athompso at athompso.net  Fri Dec 19 20:45:13 2014
From: athompso at athompso.net (Adam Thompson)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 19:45:13 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <21801226601340C3A31F53AC68092E15@ncsscfoipoxes4>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><20141218165833.GC33386@mx1.yitter.info><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net>	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<21801226601340C3A31F53AC68092E15@ncsscfoipoxes4>
Message-ID: <5494D4A9.406@athompso.net>

On 14-12-19 07:05 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
> Might I say in answer to your question above that a step towards that 
> change would be 2014-14?
> Small operators could purchase a /24 without a needs test, yet the 
> needs test remains in place for large transfers which some feel could 
> imperil the market.
While I don't agree with everything 2014-14 does and implies, I think 
it's a step in the right direction, and would support it and urge all my 
colleagues to do so as well.  (Not that any of my local colleagues seem 
to feel there's any point in paying attention to ARIN - that messages 
still falls on deaf ears.)

-- 
-Adam Thompson
  athompso at athompso.net
  Cell: +1 204 291-7950
  Fax: +1 204 489-6515



From rcarpen at network1.net  Fri Dec 19 21:02:08 2014
From: rcarpen at network1.net (Randy Carpenter)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 21:02:08 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <2115320991.584087.1419040914631.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<20141218165833.GC33386@mx1.yitter.info>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <103763982.584088.1419040928589.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net>


A capitalistic model does not work for a finite resource like IP addresses. All that would happen is that a large company could just buy up all of the space, and then set its own price for everyone else. How's that for "fairness" ?? I don't see how you can argue for treating smaller orgs more fairly by proposing to allow large companies to set whatever ridiculous price they want.

I still don't get the needs argument at all. If an org can't show that it needs the addresses, then why do they need the addresses?

I agree that in the past it was difficult for small non-multihomed orgs to get space. But now that the minimum is a /24, it is so ridiculously easy.

-Randy

----- On Dec 19, 2014, at 6:59 PM, Steven Ryerse SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com wrote:

> I'm not being ignorant I am trying to get to bottom of the discussion.  I wish
> ARINs resources were issued by ARIN in a capitalistic manner.  Then as long as
> an Org is willing to pay the going rate resources could be acquired guaranteed
> as long as there are sellers.  There is no needs testing in that model just
> supply and demand and the ability to pay.  How do we change to the Capitalistic
> model from what we got now?
> 
> 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 Ted Mittelstaedt
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 11:23 AM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
> 
> First point here Steven is you have completely ignored and failed to respond to
> my first comment regarding why ARIN is the way it is - because it exists in a
> capitalistic society - because you have no answer for that.
> 
> I do not really believe for a second that you really want an honest debate on
> this issue.  What you are doing is sitting back and cherry picking weak
> arguments to respond to, and ignoring strong ones.  So I am not going to waste
> much more time with you on this.
> 
> But I will say that your comment:
> 
> " If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that really make it OK to
> start denying small Orgs .com domain name requests?"
> 
> is one of the most ignorant I've seen on this list in quite a while.
> 
> The DNS system exists to make IP addresses that are hard to remember, replaced
> by domain names that are easy to remember.  The average English speaking adult
> knows about 50,000 English words.  There's over 100 million .com domain names
> registered at this point.  We have far and away exceeded the number of English
> .com one word domain names that an average person would know.
> 
> Therefore we have long ago "run out" of .com domain names.  Oh sure, you can
> still register new .com domain names that are nonsense like
> fdgcjghhgeafvrar.com or you can make up elaborate long sentences like
> thisismynewdomainanemisntitkewel.com and register those names, but neither of
> those meets the bar of being an easy to remember name.  They are, in fact,
> harder to remember than the IP addresses that they are supposed to make "easy
> to remember"
> 
> There
> 
> On 12/18/2014 9:15 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>> Thanks for your comments!  Actually the total number of possible .com
>> permutations is limited too.  IPv4 addresses and .com domain names are both
>> just Internet resources that Internet users need to use the Internet.
>> Obviously there are less IPv4 addresses than .com combinations, but IPv4 is
>> still the only way to access most of the Internet.  While ARIN has resources to
>> allocate - I'm absolutely fine limiting the size of an allocation to match the
>> size of an Org and their network, but I'm not fine with denying an Org any
>> resources.
>>
>> Also IPv4 cannot somehow be saved by conservation.  Regardless of any policy,
>> ARIN will run out of IPv4 probably within the next year.  If .com domain names
>> were nearing runout, would that really make it OK to start denying small Orgs
>> .com domain name requests?
>>
>> 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 Andrew Sullivan
>> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:59 AM
>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 04:35:41PM +0000, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>>
>>> If it is not OK to deny the Minimum domain (available) name to an Org, then it
>>> isn?t OK to deny an Org the Minimum  IP allocation.  They are both Internet
>>> resources.
>>>
>>
>> The analogy seems faulty to me.  The number space is finite (and in the case of
>> v4, not very large).  The name space in any given registry is admittedly not
>> infinite, since (1) it's limited to labels 63 octets long from the LDH
>> repertoire and (2) useful mnemonics are generally shorter than 63 octets and
>> usually a wordlike thing in some natural language.  There are, however, lots of
>> registries (more all the time!
>> Thanks, ICANN!); and last I checked neither info nor biz was anything close to
>> the size (or utility) of com, even though they've both been around since 2001
>> and have rather similar registration rules.  So, there is an argument in favour
>> of tight rules for allocation of v4 numbers that is not available in the name
>> case.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> A
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> ajs at anvilwalrusden.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.
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage 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 gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com  Fri Dec 19 21:27:27 2014
From: gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com (Gary Buhrmaster)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 02:27:27 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <103763982.584088.1419040928589.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<20141218165833.GC33386@mx1.yitter.info>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<2115320991.584087.1419040914631.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net>
	<103763982.584088.1419040928589.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net>
Message-ID: <CAMfXtQxSdGZM7XzBLn-mh3RBgJnP5biCF9Btp_cO=Gk1VEWkrw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 2:02 AM, Randy Carpenter <rcarpen at network1.net> wrote:
>
> A capitalistic model does not work for a finite resource like IP addresses. All that would happen is that a large company could just buy up all of the space, and then set its own price for everyone else. How's that for "fairness" ??

Well, there is the position that that would encourage
(especially) the small orgs to move to IPv6 to avoid
the $MEGACORP$ tax to return to fairness.  That
could be considered good for all.

So, to assure long term fairness, should ARIN start
charging $1,000 per IPv4 address to encourage
IPv6 adoption (and fund the RPKI defense fund :-)
[Yes, I know, fees are not a policy issue]


From mike at iptrading.com  Fri Dec 19 21:31:19 2014
From: mike at iptrading.com (Mike Burns)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 21:31:19 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><20141218165833.GC33386@mx1.yitter.info><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<103763982.584088.1419040928589.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net>
Message-ID: <4E5FF3381B4D46909D299AB5F6C9136F@ncsscfoipoxes4>

Hi Randy,

But 2014-14 would make it impossible to "buy up all of the space and then 
set its own price."
Only a single /16 per year per entity could be received without a needs 
test.
The original /0 IPv4 space was fragmented originally into /8s and then into 
/16s, and then atomized and dispersed through another 20 years of worldwide 
allocations. There is just no way to re-aggregate the space into a single 
operational seller.
Certainly not out of the sight of ARIN policy makers, who have the whip-hand 
here.

On the other hand, 2014-14 would diminish the FUD for the more numerous and 
smaller participants, and would mitigate many problems (like Mr. Ryerse's).

I do agree with you that the reduction in the minimum sizes to /24 has made 
it easier for people to get /24s from the remaining ARIN free pool.  But 
finding /24s on the transfer market is hit-and-miss. I think streamlining 
the sales process for the smallest buyers would work to their favor in terms 
of price and availability, and that streamlining is best achieved by a 
sophisticated and experienced seller with an inventory of IPv4 space which 
they do not need. 2014-14 would allow such an inventory to be filled, but 
limited to one such /16 per year.  If results of such an experiment are 
deemed positive by the community, 2014-14 could remain in place or be 
extended. If the results are perceived to be negative, informed 
policy-makers can change back to a needs-based policy, following the example 
of APNIC.

Regards,
Mike



Regards,
Mike

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Randy Carpenter" <rcarpen at network1.net>
To: "Steven Ryerse" <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>
Cc: <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness


>
> A capitalistic model does not work for a finite resource like IP 
> addresses. All that would happen is that a large company could just buy up 
> all of the space, and then set its own price for everyone else. How's that 
> for "fairness" ?? I don't see how you can argue for treating smaller orgs 
> more fairly by proposing to allow large companies to set whatever 
> ridiculous price they want.
>
> I still don't get the needs argument at all. If an org can't show that it 
> needs the addresses, then why do they need the addresses?
>
> I agree that in the past it was difficult for small non-multihomed orgs to 
> get space. But now that the minimum is a /24, it is so ridiculously easy.
>
> -Randy
>
> ----- On Dec 19, 2014, at 6:59 PM, Steven Ryerse 
> SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com wrote:
>
>> I'm not being ignorant I am trying to get to bottom of the discussion.  I 
>> wish
>> ARINs resources were issued by ARIN in a capitalistic manner.  Then as 
>> long as
>> an Org is willing to pay the going rate resources could be acquired 
>> guaranteed
>> as long as there are sellers.  There is no needs testing in that model 
>> just
>> supply and demand and the ability to pay.  How do we change to the 
>> Capitalistic
>> model from what we got now?
>>
>> 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 Ted Mittelstaedt
>> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 11:23 AM
>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>>
>> First point here Steven is you have completely ignored and failed to 
>> respond to
>> my first comment regarding why ARIN is the way it is - because it exists 
>> in a
>> capitalistic society - because you have no answer for that.
>>
>> I do not really believe for a second that you really want an honest 
>> debate on
>> this issue.  What you are doing is sitting back and cherry picking weak
>> arguments to respond to, and ignoring strong ones.  So I am not going to 
>> waste
>> much more time with you on this.
>>
>> But I will say that your comment:
>>
>> " If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that really make it OK 
>> to
>> start denying small Orgs .com domain name requests?"
>>
>> is one of the most ignorant I've seen on this list in quite a while.
>>
>> The DNS system exists to make IP addresses that are hard to remember, 
>> replaced
>> by domain names that are easy to remember.  The average English speaking 
>> adult
>> knows about 50,000 English words.  There's over 100 million .com domain 
>> names
>> registered at this point.  We have far and away exceeded the number of 
>> English
>> .com one word domain names that an average person would know.
>>
>> Therefore we have long ago "run out" of .com domain names.  Oh sure, you 
>> can
>> still register new .com domain names that are nonsense like
>> fdgcjghhgeafvrar.com or you can make up elaborate long sentences like
>> thisismynewdomainanemisntitkewel.com and register those names, but 
>> neither of
>> those meets the bar of being an easy to remember name.  They are, in 
>> fact,
>> harder to remember than the IP addresses that they are supposed to make 
>> "easy
>> to remember"
>>
>> There
>>
>> On 12/18/2014 9:15 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>> Thanks for your comments!  Actually the total number of possible .com
>>> permutations is limited too.  IPv4 addresses and .com domain names are 
>>> both
>>> just Internet resources that Internet users need to use the Internet.
>>> Obviously there are less IPv4 addresses than .com combinations, but IPv4 
>>> is
>>> still the only way to access most of the Internet.  While ARIN has 
>>> resources to
>>> allocate - I'm absolutely fine limiting the size of an allocation to 
>>> match the
>>> size of an Org and their network, but I'm not fine with denying an Org 
>>> any
>>> resources.
>>>
>>> Also IPv4 cannot somehow be saved by conservation.  Regardless of any 
>>> policy,
>>> ARIN will run out of IPv4 probably within the next year.  If .com domain 
>>> names
>>> were nearing runout, would that really make it OK to start denying small 
>>> Orgs
>>> .com domain name requests?
>>>
>>> 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 Andrew Sullivan
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:59 AM
>>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 04:35:41PM +0000, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If it is not OK to deny the Minimum domain (available) name to an Org, 
>>>> then it
>>>> isn?t OK to deny an Org the Minimum  IP allocation.  They are both 
>>>> Internet
>>>> resources.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The analogy seems faulty to me.  The number space is finite (and in the 
>>> case of
>>> v4, not very large).  The name space in any given registry is admittedly 
>>> not
>>> infinite, since (1) it's limited to labels 63 octets long from the LDH
>>> repertoire and (2) useful mnemonics are generally shorter than 63 octets 
>>> and
>>> usually a wordlike thing in some natural language.  There are, however, 
>>> lots of
>>> registries (more all the time!
>>> Thanks, ICANN!); and last I checked neither info nor biz was anything 
>>> close to
>>> the size (or utility) of com, even though they've both been around since 
>>> 2001
>>> and have rather similar registration rules.  So, there is an argument in 
>>> favour
>>> of tight rules for allocation of v4 numbers that is not available in the 
>>> name
>>> case.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> A
>>>
>>> --
>>> Andrew Sullivan
>>> ajs at anvilwalrusden.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.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PPML
>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>>> Unsubscribe or manage 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 athompso at athompso.net  Fri Dec 19 22:43:24 2014
From: athompso at athompso.net (Adam Thompson)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 21:43:24 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <103763982.584088.1419040928589.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>	<0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>	<20141218165833.GC33386@mx1.yitter.info>	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>	<549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net>	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<103763982.584088.1419040928589.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net>
Message-ID: <5494F05C.3020104@athompso.net>

On 14-12-19 08:02 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
> A capitalistic model does not work for a finite resource like IP addresses.
I'm not even a Smithian capitalist, and I see the first problem here:

Why doesn't it work?

Market stability will be reached according to every economic theory I've 
read, regardless of whether the resources are finite or not. It may be 
that stability means a gradually-increasing price for a while followed 
by rapid inflation, but estimates I've heard posit that IPv6 deployment 
will be widespread by the time the market price would otherwise skyrocket.

> All that would happen is that a large company could just buy up all of the space, and then set its own price for everyone else.
Really?  How many universities and large organizations have /8s, /9s, 
and /10s, that they would almost immediately start the process of 
monetizing?  It's "easy" (*cough*) - switch to NAT'd private addresses, 
switch to IPv6, whatever.  Heck, simple disaggregation of large blocks 
would release tons of /16 and longer prefixes based on the usage 
patterns I've seen at most large organizations.  ISPs are not generally 
included in this, they tend to use what they have. IBM, HP/Compaq/DEC, 
MIT, Princeton, Harvard, etc., etc., however, are the poster children 
for low usage.  They just don't have a big enough incentive to worry 
about it yet.

Also, see my previous posts for references to academic treatment of the 
fact that hoarding *isn't a bad thing* in the free market.  Of course, 
this isn't a free market yet, so there's an argument to be made there...

> How's that for "fairness" ?? I don't see how you can argue for treating smaller orgs more fairly by proposing to allow large companies to set whatever ridiculous price they want.
The playing field is then level - all new entrants get to simply pay the 
going rate, with no (perceived?) favouritism towards incumbents or large 
entrants.  This assumes there's a reasonable relationship between the 
price of a /16 and the price of a /24, of course. Smith's "invisible 
hand" should, in theory, assure this...

> I still don't get the needs argument at all. If an org can't show that it needs the addresses, then why do they need the addresses?
Why should I have to disclose to a third party exactly what my plans 
are?  Even the IRS (or CRA, here) doesn't need that level of detail.  
I'm sure the NSA knows exactly what my plans are, but if I have deep 
enough pockets, I don't see why this resource - almost alone among all 
common resources both natural and artificial - should be forbidden to me.

The only other example I can think of that is widely-known is New York 
(and elsewhere) Taxicab licenses... and almost everyone except taxicab 
license owners thinks that system is, shall we say, suboptimal.



All of the points above here are posited on the fact that the US is, at 
least supposedly, a Smithian capitalist society that embraces the free 
market.
I happen to think capitalism is fundamentally broken, but at the same 
time I'd rather let the market control what I can and can't do rather 
than a handful of regulators who I *know* don't have my interests at 
heart.  (Nor is that their mandate, I don't mean they're behaving 
maliciously!)




In essence, above is theory, below is practical.




Moving on to problems in the areas of policy, bias, and technical:
> I agree that in the past it was difficult for small non-multihomed orgs to get space. But now that the minimum is a /24, it is so ridiculously easy.
Does multihoming, per se, meet the (v4) needs test after the policy 
changes in 2014?  If yes, I can live with the situation.  If no, then 
small entities are still getting screwed.
As a small-to-medium-sized enterprise, I probably NAT my entire company 
behind one or two (possibly not even contiguous) IP addresses, with 
maybe another half dozen publicly-visible servers. But if I want to be 
multi-homed, I must first use >64 public IPs, and come up with a reason 
to use >128 public IPs within a year. What if I just need those 6 or 7 
IPs to be highly available?

Under the current NRPM, the only apparent way a small org can multi-home 
(v4) is to get a reassignment from an ISP, at which point they're stuck 
with that ISP pretty much forever, barring a painful and expensive 
renumbering process (say, ~1000 incoming static VPN tunnels, not all of 
which are under their direct control?).

(I also note that the multihoming justification for IPv6 direct 
assignment is still there, even as the IPv4 justification is gone.)

This is the primary example today of how the NRPM is heavily biased 
towards large organizations and SPs in the end-stages of IPv4 runout.  
Meanwhile, if there were no needs test for /24s, and a healthy transfer 
market, the organization would have the *choice* of paying for PI space 
or choosing alternate workarounds with higher TCO (e.g. DNS-based 
load-balancing, manual load-balancing, etc.). Right now, the small 
organization that doesn't wish to become a sharecropper for their 
incumbent SP is - as far as I can tell from reading the NRPM tonight - 
S.O.L.

The fact they can still get a direct IPv6 allocation is meaningless 
until IPv6 deployment reaches some reasonable density of penetration 
(>40%, roughly), and I don't hear anyone here claiming that will happen 
until we actually run out of IPv4 space, and SPs are no longer able to 
acquire v4 space on demand.  Small organizations already can't acquire 
v4 space on demand - but they don't carry much weight with SPs.

Yes, the reasoning here is *partially* circular, because there are two 
related problems converging to screw the small organization (which group 
includes most of my customers, and in fact, most businesses in Canada).

Another way to view this, which has some relevancy to the problem 
(mentioned earlier today) with separation between ARIN and NANOG, unlike 
APNIC and RIPE which largely combine those functions, is that this 
wouldn't be an issue if global routing tables carried prefixes longer 
than /24.  The main reason that's the case today - as far as I can tell 
- is TCAM space on hardware routers, which directly translates into: Money.

[Rant about certain short-sighted & self-centered ISPs removed, didn't 
add any value to the discussion, no matter how much it made me feel better.]

Right now we have this mixture of regulatory oversight and "market" 
forces that indirectly control said regulatory oversight... this isn't 
IMHO a healthy model, and any steps we can take to move either to a pure 
regulatory function *or* a pure market-driven regime should improve the 
situation.  Given that ARIN is located in the U.S., a pure market-driven 
regime seems like a better idea right now.

Regardless, small organizations are - right now - impossibly 
disadvantaged if they want PI space for any reason, especially multi-homing.


If I've misread the NRPM v2014.4 (2014-Sep-17), feel free to correct my 
interpretation... the only provision for low-usage multihoming of IPv4 I 
could find is 4.2.3.6, which is commercially punitive, at least in my 
region.

-- 
-Adam Thompson
  athompso at athompso.net
  Cell: +1 204 291-7950
  Fax: +1 204 489-6515



From tedm at ipinc.net  Sat Dec 20 03:53:01 2014
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 00:53:01 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <28611A4E-0381-449D-BC33-A22EFD9B20B2@delong.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net
	works.com> <0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974
	D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CAMfXtQwj_-=1rm5rSq0LD+VbD2_mu9JWZEx2fyL5siTV-O4xmQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B38D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<54944D71.10204@ipinc.net>
	<28611A4E-0381-449D-BC33-A22EFD9B20B2@delong.com>
Message-ID: <549538ED.9080908@ipinc.net>



On 12/19/2014 12:32 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Do you have evidence to support any specific numbers being abandoned?
>

I have posted multiple times on this mailing list in the past about 
resource 199.248.255.0/24 being abandoned

This is a direct assignment that was made to Leatherman Tool Group back 
in 1994 to support a T1 from Internet Partners, Inc.  It was abandoned
a few years later when Leatherman switched to a different ISP.  Internet 
Partners Inc. used it for several years until early 2000's when it got a 
/19.  Since that time, over a decade, it's been unused.

The Tech org on it is set to

OrgTechName:   No, Contact Known
OrgTechPhone:  +1-800-555-1234
OrgTechEmail:  nobody at example.com

probably as a result of ARIN's POC validation policy.  However, the Org 
abuse contact on it is set to:

OrgAbuseHandle: BCO-ARIN
OrgAbuseName:   O'Brien, Byron
OrgAbusePhone:  +1-503-546-9929
OrgAbuseEmail:  hostmaster at hcorp.com
OrgAbuseRef:    http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/BCO-ARIN


hcorp.com was abandoned when the company it owned went out of business. 
  It was picked up by a domain speculator which is clearly FRAUDULENTLY 
responding to ARIN's email probes.  As a result ARIN has
not expired THAT POC which it should have done years ago.

> Have you presented that evidence to ARIN?
>

Yes.  I told the hostmaster about this block early 2000's when I 
requested and obtained the /19 for Internet Partners, Inc.   It was
listed as a "trade in" block as part of the justification to obtain
that /19 (which as a matter of fact, Internet Partners, Inc. returned 
the /19 a couple years ago)

> It's easy to make claims like this because they are impossible to prove or disprove in most cases.
>

In this case it's certainly possible to prove since Leatherman Tools 
still exists as a company.  A phone call to their IT group from ARIN 
would confirm it.  A letter to their group would confirm it.

> If you have actual evidence of specific abandoned resources to support your claim, please provide that data to ARIN. I'm fairly certain that they would act to reclaim abandoned addresses with sufficient evidence.
>

ARIN isn't interested in expending labor on /24's.  The problem is 
there's a LOT of /24's out there.  And I am quite sure a large number of 
them have  "No, Contact Known"  POC's as a result of validation.

Ted

> Owen
>
>> On Dec 19, 2014, at 08:08 , Ted Mittelstaedt<tedm at ipinc.net>  wrote:
>>
>> The Legacy community mostly doesn't exist.
>>
>> While there are some legacy orgs that have large amounts, and some
>> smaller ones that have small allocations, who are still using their numbers, there are a large number of small allocations out there that were abandoned years ago and ARIN has not reclaimed.
>>
>> Ted
>>
>> On 12/18/2014 9:27 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>> Maybe a majority of the vocal community does, but I doubt if you add in all members of the community who do not comment and all the members of the community that only hold legacy allocations, I suspect that might not be the case.  I think the legacy community is speaking volumes by not participating by commenting in this forum.
>>>
>>> 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: Gary Buhrmaster [mailto:gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:12 PM
>>> To: Steven Ryerse
>>> Cc: Owen DeLong; arin-ppml at arin.net
>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Steven Ryerse<SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>> All of those stats are interesting but they are not what is important here.  What is important is how many small Orgs that applied for the minimum allocation (as it was defined at the time of the allocation request) since ARIN was chartered were denied because of needs policy.
>>>>
>>>> I don?t know what that number is but if it is greater than zero, it shouldn?t have happened!  ARIN?s Mission is to Advance the Internet, not to stifle it.
>>>
>>> While there is clearly support by some for your position advocating needless number allocations, the majority of the community supports a review to insure that the allocations are actually advancing the Internet, and not just throwing numbers around to whomever asks, whatever their plans (or lack thereof).
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PPML
>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>>> Unsubscribe or manage 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 tedm at ipinc.net  Sat Dec 20 04:08:45 2014
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 01:08:45 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net
	works.com><0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com><5B9E90747FA2974
	D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><20141218165833.G
	C33386@mx1.yitter.info><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <54953C9D.1050303@ipinc.net>


Your not talking about a Capitalistic model your talking about a 
Laissez-faire model.  While this might make some Libertarians have wet 
dreams it is a recipe for anarchy which is why no economy on Earth 
operates this way.

What is generally understood about Capitalism today is that the catch-22 
of Capitalism is that if you have a market that is completely controlled 
by the government, that is the opposite of Capitalism - but if you have 
a market that has zero government controls it immediately devolves into 
a set of monopolies which are also the opposite of Capitalism.

In short, the cost of real economic freedom is constant government 
tinkering.

I realize it's difficult to understand for a lot of people.  The Tea 
Party in the United States is filled with people who don't understand it.

ARIN resource allocations are as close to Capitalism today as we are 
going to get.  Once the transfer market was approved, that ended the 
last vestige of authoritarian control by ARIN.

The needs testing is far less intrusive than government controls on 
automobiles, yet nobody would argue today the US does not have 
competition in the automobile market.

Ted

On 12/19/2014 3:59 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> I'm not being ignorant I am trying to get to bottom of the discussion.  I wish ARINs resources were issued by ARIN in a capitalistic manner.  Then as long as an Org is willing to pay the going rate resources could be acquired guaranteed as long as there are sellers.  There is no needs testing in that model just supply and demand and the ability to pay.  How do we change to the Capitalistic model from what we got now?
>
> 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 Ted Mittelstaedt
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 11:23 AM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>
> First point here Steven is you have completely ignored and failed to respond to my first comment regarding why ARIN is the way it is - because it exists in a capitalistic society - because you have no answer for that.
>
> I do not really believe for a second that you really want an honest debate on this issue.  What you are doing is sitting back and cherry picking weak arguments to respond to, and ignoring strong ones.  So I am not going to waste much more time with you on this.
>
> But I will say that your comment:
>
> " If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that really make it OK to start denying small Orgs .com domain name requests?"
>
> is one of the most ignorant I've seen on this list in quite a while.
>
> The DNS system exists to make IP addresses that are hard to remember, replaced by domain names that are easy to remember.  The average English speaking adult knows about 50,000 English words.  There's over 100 million .com domain names registered at this point.  We have far and away exceeded the number of English .com one word domain names that an average person would know.
>
> Therefore we have long ago "run out" of .com domain names.  Oh sure, you can still register new .com domain names that are nonsense like fdgcjghhgeafvrar.com or you can make up elaborate long sentences like thisismynewdomainanemisntitkewel.com and register those names, but neither of those meets the bar of being an easy to remember name.  They are, in fact, harder to remember than the IP addresses that they are supposed to make "easy to remember"
>
> There
>
> On 12/18/2014 9:15 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>> Thanks for your comments!  Actually the total number of possible .com permutations is limited too.  IPv4 addresses and .com domain names are both just Internet resources that Internet users need to use the Internet.  Obviously there are less IPv4 addresses than .com combinations, but IPv4 is still the only way to access most of the Internet.  While ARIN has resources to allocate - I'm absolutely fine limiting the size of an allocation to match the size of an Org and their network, but I'm not fine with denying an Org any resources.
>>
>> Also IPv4 cannot somehow be saved by conservation.  Regardless of any policy, ARIN will run out of IPv4 probably within the next year.  If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that really make it OK to start denying small Orgs .com domain name requests?
>>
>> 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 Andrew Sullivan
>> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:59 AM
>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 04:35:41PM +0000, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>>
>>> If it is not OK to deny the Minimum domain (available) name to an Org, then it isn?t OK to deny an Org the Minimum  IP allocation.  They are both Internet resources.
>>>
>>
>> The analogy seems faulty to me.  The number space is finite (and in the case of v4, not very large).  The name space in any given registry is admittedly not infinite, since (1) it's limited to labels 63 octets long from the LDH repertoire and (2) useful mnemonics are generally shorter than 63 octets and usually a wordlike thing in some natural language.  There are, however, lots of registries (more all the time!
>> Thanks, ICANN!); and last I checked neither info nor biz was anything close to the size (or utility) of com, even though they've both been around since 2001 and have rather similar registration rules.  So, there is an argument in favour of tight rules for allocation of v4 numbers that is not available in the name case.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> A
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> ajs at anvilwalrusden.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.
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage 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 tedm at ipinc.net  Sat Dec 20 04:40:50 2014
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 01:40:50 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <052c01d01bdc$d70e0640$852a12c0$@tndh.net>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net	works.com>
	<0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>	<5B9E90747FA2974	D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>	<CAMfXtQwj_-=1rm5rSq0LD+VbD2_mu9JWZEx2fyL5siTV-O4xmQ@mail.gmail.com>	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B38D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>	<535D0B74-4969-4FA3-B496-A4C4ECCC68A8@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54438E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<052c01d01bdc$d70e0640$852a12c0$@tndh.net>
Message-ID: <54954422.1050905@ipinc.net>



On 12/19/2014 2:40 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
> Steven,
>
> As another small org, I agree with you completely about the absurdly
> arbitrary nature of the policies that are biased in favor of the
> large organizations.

The largest bias is pricing.  IP addresses are retail sold on a per-IP 
basis - every network in the United States charges extra to end users 
for larger numbers of IP addresses - but ARIN's price per IP is lower 
the larger number of them you "rent" from them.

You want to make a level playing field, THAT is far more important.

> some cases.  At the same time, no matter how much noise the ARIN
> community makes about "we don't talk about routing", this allocation
> needs assessment has always been about routing slots, because the
> only real reason you "NEED" an address is to have it routed.

This is a simplification.  From the ROUTING COMMUNITIES point of view, 
it's about routing slots.  From the individual requestors point of view 
it is NOT about routing slots - it's about not being tied to a specific 
upstream network's assignment.

NOBODY's router doesn't have enough memory for THEIR OWN routing slots. 
  The memory their router lacks is memory for EVERYONE ELSE'S routing 
slots. ;-)

>
> To a first order this is where the ARIN/nanog split model is
> completely broken. The other regions have a more integrated approach
> to operations and policy discussions, so it is easier to see the
> balance and trade-offs about how the resources are managed.
>
> Seriously, I believe ARIN should get out of the IPv4 business NOW...
> The world should have moved on 10 years ago so this death-spiral
> runout tail BS would have never happened, but here we are. The only
> sane way to get past the never-ending policy tweaking is to hand the
> remaining IPv4 resource back to IANA and let the other RIRs deal with
> it.

You must be joking.

> If a small org is having a problem getting IPv6 resources, I care
> and want to help fix that. If they believe they need more than a
> single IPv4 to support the dwindling number of XP machines that have
> IPv6 turned off by default, they are in need of an education, and
> probably some guidance on how to build and deploy IPv6 enabled apps
> and infrastructure.
>

This discussion is about small ISP's not small end user or business or 
residential customers.

A small ISP is most certainly not going to stick all their customers 
behind a single IPv4 address, regardless of whether their customers are 
running XP or not.

Your comment here isn't applicable to small orgs when those small orgs 
are ISPs.  It's absolutely applicable to end user orgs with a single ISP 
connection.

With that said - if every small end user out there got their own IPv6 
assignment and had their ISP advertise it, we would have huge routing 
slot problems.

Ted

> Full disclosure: Some of us on this list happen to be in the business
> of helping small orgs with IPv6 awareness&  migration.
>
> Tony CEO Hain Global Consulting, Inc.
>
>
>> -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
>> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse
>> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 1:28 PM To: 'Owen DeLong' Cc:
>> arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>>
>> But you ignore the reality of life in a small Org that has limited
>> resources. They are spending all their time just trying to keep
>> their doors open and don't have the extra time to participate even
>> if they want to.  I think this community is certainly capable of
>> doing their fiduciary responsibility by making sure the needs of
>> small Orgs are met just like is done for larger Orgs. I do see this
>> community doing some of that but I think more needs to be done.
>>
>> 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, December 18, 2014 12:47
>> PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: Gary Buhrmaster; arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>>
>> It's always fun when people depend on nameless faceless silent
>> majorities to bolster their argument.
>>
>> Bottom line, in this as in all things, decisions are made by those
>> who show up. If the members of the community who do not comment
>> and/or only hold legacy allocations continue to not speak up, then
>> it is impossible for us to consider their support based solely on
>> your belief that it exists.
>>
>> If you truly believe this to be the case, then rally them to come
>> out and support what you want. I assure you that if they do, policy
>> will change based on consensus of the expanded body of
>> participation. However, we can only operate on the consensus of
>> those who voice an opinion. It is impossible to count support or
>> opposition from those who do not voice it.
>>
>> This is true in any deliberative body and in any policy process of
>> which I am aware. There is simply no viable or accurate way to
>> measure the opinions of those who choose not to voice an opinion.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>> On Dec 18, 2014, at 09:27 , Steven Ryerse<SRyerse at eclipse-
>> networks.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Maybe a majority of the vocal community does, but I doubt if you
>>> add in all
>> members of the community who do not comment and all the members of
>> the community that only hold legacy allocations, I suspect that
>> might not be the case.  I think the legacy community is speaking
>> volumes by not participating by commenting in this forum.
>>>
>>> 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: Gary Buhrmaster
>>> [mailto:gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 18,
>>> 2014 12:12 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: Owen DeLong;
>>> arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Steven Ryerse<SRyerse at eclipse-
>> networks.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> All of those stats are interesting but they are not what is
>>>> important here.
>> What is important is how many small Orgs that applied for the
>> minimum allocation (as it was defined at the time of the allocation
>> request) since ARIN was chartered were denied because of needs
>> policy.
>>>>
>>>> I don?t know what that number is but if it is greater than
>>>> zero, it shouldn?t
>> have happened!  ARIN?s Mission is to Advance the Internet, not to
>> stifle it.
>>>
>>> While there is clearly support by some for your position
>>> advocating
>> needless number allocations, the majority of the community supports
>> a review to insure that the allocations are actually advancing the
>> Internet, and not just throwing numbers around to whomever asks,
>> whatever their plans (or lack thereof).
>>
>> _______________________________________________ PPML You are
>> receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
>> Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or
>> manage 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 jcurran at arin.net  Sat Dec 20 06:48:45 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 11:48:45 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <052c01d01bdc$d70e0640$852a12c0$@tndh.net>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net
	works.com> <0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974	D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CAMfXtQwj_-=1rm5rSq0LD+VbD2_mu9JWZEx2fyL5siTV-O4xmQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B38D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<535D0B74-4969-4FA3-B496-A4C4ECCC68A8@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54438E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<052c01d01bdc$d70e0640$852a12c0$@tndh.net>
Message-ID: <7EC985BF-BCA3-43AE-94CA-674466A7A274@corp.arin.net>

On Dec 19, 2014, at 5:40 PM, Tony Hain <alh-ietf at tndh.net> wrote:
> ...Pick a number and use it in your routers; the world will not care if it is used somewhere else. The bottom line is that access to the allocated resource requires a routing slot, and you need to justify that. The participants from the large organizations have biased the policies to keep the size of the routing system within the constraints of their budgets, but as far as I am concerned that is as arbitrary as anything else, and getting them to dump IPv4 is even more cost effective.
> 
> To a first order this is where the ARIN/nanog split model is completely broken. The other regions have a more integrated approach to operations and policy discussions, so it is easier to see the balance and trade-offs about how the resources are managed. 

Tony - 
 
   Can you elaborate on how the more integrated approach of other 
   regions has resulted in significantly different results with
   respect to these policy tradeoffs?  To my knowledge, the other
   RIRs are quite similar in the overall outcomes with respect to 
   routing and allocation, i.e. there are minimum allocation sizes 
   which preclude tiny assignments, there are policies for smaller 
   critical infrastructure assignments etc (You can find a comparative 
   policy matrix here if it aids in responding to my question -
   <https://www.nro.net/rir-comparative-policy-overview/rir-comparative-policy-overview-2014-03>)

   There is nothing preventing discussion of routing implications
   of Internet number resource policy at NANOG, other than the 
   interest of the operational community in doing so.  Historically,
   there has been a modest level of interest in such discussions at
   NANOG, and the NANOG Program Committee considers that level of 
   interest when preparing future programs.

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From frnkblk at iname.com  Sat Dec 20 09:37:48 2014
From: frnkblk at iname.com (Frank Bulk)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 08:37:48 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <5494F05C.3020104@athompso.net>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>	<0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>	<20141218165833.GC33386@mx1.yitter.info>	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>	<549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net>	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>	<103763982.584088.1419040928589.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net>
	<5494F05C.3020104@athompso.net>
Message-ID: <000601d01c62$87202d30$95608790$@iname.com>

For those of us in the "NAT is bad"
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v26BAlfWBm8) camp, the risk I perceive with
a purely capitalistic model is that many organizations will sell their IPv4
address space to the highest bidder (who may hoard it) and even more NAT
will be deployed.  While the effects of CGN are documented (i.e.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7021), I think that many network operators
will (choose to) ignore those (to the detriment of their end users) or
capitalize on that by charging extra to those who don't want to go through
CGN.  In reaction, applications and services will be further modified to
address CGN, the opposite of my preferred approach towards end-to-end
communication.

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Adam Thompson
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 9:43 PM
To: Randy Carpenter; ARIN-PPML at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness

On 14-12-19 08:02 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
> A capitalistic model does not work for a finite resource like IP
addresses.
I'm not even a Smithian capitalist, and I see the first problem here:

Why doesn't it work?

Market stability will be reached according to every economic theory I've 
read, regardless of whether the resources are finite or not. It may be 
that stability means a gradually-increasing price for a while followed 
by rapid inflation, but estimates I've heard posit that IPv6 deployment 
will be widespread by the time the market price would otherwise skyrocket.

> All that would happen is that a large company could just buy up all of the
space, and then set its own price for everyone else.
Really?  How many universities and large organizations have /8s, /9s, 
and /10s, that they would almost immediately start the process of 
monetizing?  It's "easy" (*cough*) - switch to NAT'd private addresses, 
switch to IPv6, whatever.  Heck, simple disaggregation of large blocks 
would release tons of /16 and longer prefixes based on the usage 
patterns I've seen at most large organizations.  ISPs are not generally 
included in this, they tend to use what they have. IBM, HP/Compaq/DEC, 
MIT, Princeton, Harvard, etc., etc., however, are the poster children 
for low usage.  They just don't have a big enough incentive to worry 
about it yet.

Also, see my previous posts for references to academic treatment of the 
fact that hoarding *isn't a bad thing* in the free market.  Of course, 
this isn't a free market yet, so there's an argument to be made there...

> How's that for "fairness" ?? I don't see how you can argue for treating
smaller orgs more fairly by proposing to allow large companies to set
whatever ridiculous price they want.
The playing field is then level - all new entrants get to simply pay the 
going rate, with no (perceived?) favouritism towards incumbents or large 
entrants.  This assumes there's a reasonable relationship between the 
price of a /16 and the price of a /24, of course. Smith's "invisible 
hand" should, in theory, assure this...

> I still don't get the needs argument at all. If an org can't show that it
needs the addresses, then why do they need the addresses?
Why should I have to disclose to a third party exactly what my plans 
are?  Even the IRS (or CRA, here) doesn't need that level of detail.  
I'm sure the NSA knows exactly what my plans are, but if I have deep 
enough pockets, I don't see why this resource - almost alone among all 
common resources both natural and artificial - should be forbidden to me.

The only other example I can think of that is widely-known is New York 
(and elsewhere) Taxicab licenses... and almost everyone except taxicab 
license owners thinks that system is, shall we say, suboptimal.



All of the points above here are posited on the fact that the US is, at 
least supposedly, a Smithian capitalist society that embraces the free 
market.
I happen to think capitalism is fundamentally broken, but at the same 
time I'd rather let the market control what I can and can't do rather 
than a handful of regulators who I *know* don't have my interests at 
heart.  (Nor is that their mandate, I don't mean they're behaving 
maliciously!)




In essence, above is theory, below is practical.




Moving on to problems in the areas of policy, bias, and technical:
> I agree that in the past it was difficult for small non-multihomed orgs to
get space. But now that the minimum is a /24, it is so ridiculously easy.
Does multihoming, per se, meet the (v4) needs test after the policy 
changes in 2014?  If yes, I can live with the situation.  If no, then 
small entities are still getting screwed.
As a small-to-medium-sized enterprise, I probably NAT my entire company 
behind one or two (possibly not even contiguous) IP addresses, with 
maybe another half dozen publicly-visible servers. But if I want to be 
multi-homed, I must first use >64 public IPs, and come up with a reason 
to use >128 public IPs within a year. What if I just need those 6 or 7 
IPs to be highly available?

Under the current NRPM, the only apparent way a small org can multi-home 
(v4) is to get a reassignment from an ISP, at which point they're stuck 
with that ISP pretty much forever, barring a painful and expensive 
renumbering process (say, ~1000 incoming static VPN tunnels, not all of 
which are under their direct control?).

(I also note that the multihoming justification for IPv6 direct 
assignment is still there, even as the IPv4 justification is gone.)

This is the primary example today of how the NRPM is heavily biased 
towards large organizations and SPs in the end-stages of IPv4 runout.  
Meanwhile, if there were no needs test for /24s, and a healthy transfer 
market, the organization would have the *choice* of paying for PI space 
or choosing alternate workarounds with higher TCO (e.g. DNS-based 
load-balancing, manual load-balancing, etc.). Right now, the small 
organization that doesn't wish to become a sharecropper for their 
incumbent SP is - as far as I can tell from reading the NRPM tonight - 
S.O.L.

The fact they can still get a direct IPv6 allocation is meaningless 
until IPv6 deployment reaches some reasonable density of penetration 
(>40%, roughly), and I don't hear anyone here claiming that will happen 
until we actually run out of IPv4 space, and SPs are no longer able to 
acquire v4 space on demand.  Small organizations already can't acquire 
v4 space on demand - but they don't carry much weight with SPs.

Yes, the reasoning here is *partially* circular, because there are two 
related problems converging to screw the small organization (which group 
includes most of my customers, and in fact, most businesses in Canada).

Another way to view this, which has some relevancy to the problem 
(mentioned earlier today) with separation between ARIN and NANOG, unlike 
APNIC and RIPE which largely combine those functions, is that this 
wouldn't be an issue if global routing tables carried prefixes longer 
than /24.  The main reason that's the case today - as far as I can tell 
- is TCAM space on hardware routers, which directly translates into: Money.

[Rant about certain short-sighted & self-centered ISPs removed, didn't 
add any value to the discussion, no matter how much it made me feel better.]

Right now we have this mixture of regulatory oversight and "market" 
forces that indirectly control said regulatory oversight... this isn't 
IMHO a healthy model, and any steps we can take to move either to a pure 
regulatory function *or* a pure market-driven regime should improve the 
situation.  Given that ARIN is located in the U.S., a pure market-driven 
regime seems like a better idea right now.

Regardless, small organizations are - right now - impossibly 
disadvantaged if they want PI space for any reason, especially multi-homing.


If I've misread the NRPM v2014.4 (2014-Sep-17), feel free to correct my 
interpretation... the only provision for low-usage multihoming of IPv4 I 
could find is 4.2.3.6, which is commercially punitive, at least in my 
region.

-- 
-Adam Thompson
  athompso at athompso.net
  Cell: +1 204 291-7950
  Fax: +1 204 489-6515

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




From sethm at rollernet.us  Sat Dec 20 10:06:42 2014
From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 07:06:42 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <4E5FF3381B4D46909D299AB5F6C9136F@ncsscfoipoxes4>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><20141218165833.GC33386@mx1.yitter.info><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>	<103763982.584088.1419040928589.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net>
	<4E5FF3381B4D46909D299AB5F6C9136F@ncsscfoipoxes4>
Message-ID: <54959082.6030006@rollernet.us>

On 12/19/14, 6:31 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
> Only a single /16 per year per entity could be received without a needs
> test.


I think 2014-14 should be a "one and done" endgame transfer option for 
IPv4. That is, sure you can transfer up to a /16 without a needs test, 
but once you've exercised that option you can't do it again.

~Seth


From mike at iptrading.com  Sat Dec 20 10:21:40 2014
From: mike at iptrading.com (Mike Burns)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 10:21:40 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>	<0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>	<20141218165833.GC33386@mx1.yitter.info>	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>	<549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net>	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>	<103763982.584088.1419040928589.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net><5494F05C.3020104@athompso.net>
	<000601d01c62$87202d30$95608790$@iname.com>
Message-ID: <8841AC1BDF314F0BB0761FF377C7775E@ncsscfoipoxes4>

Hi Frank,

Network operators ignore the diminishing issues caused by NAT because their 
customers just don't care.
End-to-end died with the advent of NAT and the introduction of firewalls in 
the 1990s.
It's both a relic and pipedream, not a lodestar.

So in your view pure capitalists will buy and hoard IPv4 even as CGN and 
IPv6 conspire to make their hoarded assets less valuable? I am not sure I 
follow your claim that capitalists will seek to acquire (as you say, by 
paying the highest price!) and hoard IPv4? To what end?

Can you extend that to any scenario supporting this behavior should 
regulatory hurdles be marginally reduced per 2014-14, which would preclude 
the hoarding fear by limiting needs-free transfers?

If CGN is so bad, won't a "pure capitalist" seek to profit by offering non 
NATted connections to customers clamoring for it?

Have you ignored the argument about the dispersal of IPv4 space into the 
hands of many disparate organizations over the last 30 years, leaving 
nowhere to solicit the purchase of market-altering quantities of IPv4 space 
and precluding any private and stealthy effort in that regards?

Even the ARIN legal staff reviewed 2014-14 (admittedly not the subject of 
this thread nor your comments) and found that market manipulation would not 
be a reasonable fear, but we continue to hear the claims of manipulation and 
hoarding in the context of the needs-test.

If end-to-end and a flat network is desirable to paying customers, network 
operators will offer that. The dual-stack IPv6/CGN Internet is coming, and 
will provide a venue for competition between these two network concepts. If 
you are confident that IPv6 is superior, then you should be confident that 
capitalism will take us there. Because whether or not one thinks of 
capitalism as good or bad, one thing capitalists tend to do is deliver what 
their customers demand.

Regards,
Mike Burns




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk at iname.com>
To: "'Adam Thompson'" <athompso at athompso.net>; "Randy Carpenter" 
<rcarpen at network1.net>; "ARIN-PPML at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness


> For those of us in the "NAT is bad"
> (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v26BAlfWBm8) camp, the risk I perceive 
> with
> a purely capitalistic model is that many organizations will sell their 
> IPv4
> address space to the highest bidder (who may hoard it) and even more NAT
> will be deployed.  While the effects of CGN are documented (i.e.
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7021), I think that many network operators
> will (choose to) ignore those (to the detriment of their end users) or
> capitalize on that by charging extra to those who don't want to go through
> CGN.  In reaction, applications and services will be further modified to
> address CGN, the opposite of my preferred approach towards end-to-end
> communication.
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Adam Thompson
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 9:43 PM
> To: Randy Carpenter; ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>
> On 14-12-19 08:02 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
>> A capitalistic model does not work for a finite resource like IP
> addresses.
> I'm not even a Smithian capitalist, and I see the first problem here:
>
> Why doesn't it work?
>
> Market stability will be reached according to every economic theory I've
> read, regardless of whether the resources are finite or not. It may be
> that stability means a gradually-increasing price for a while followed
> by rapid inflation, but estimates I've heard posit that IPv6 deployment
> will be widespread by the time the market price would otherwise skyrocket.
>
>> All that would happen is that a large company could just buy up all of 
>> the
> space, and then set its own price for everyone else.
> Really?  How many universities and large organizations have /8s, /9s,
> and /10s, that they would almost immediately start the process of
> monetizing?  It's "easy" (*cough*) - switch to NAT'd private addresses,
> switch to IPv6, whatever.  Heck, simple disaggregation of large blocks
> would release tons of /16 and longer prefixes based on the usage
> patterns I've seen at most large organizations.  ISPs are not generally
> included in this, they tend to use what they have. IBM, HP/Compaq/DEC,
> MIT, Princeton, Harvard, etc., etc., however, are the poster children
> for low usage.  They just don't have a big enough incentive to worry
> about it yet.
>
> Also, see my previous posts for references to academic treatment of the
> fact that hoarding *isn't a bad thing* in the free market.  Of course,
> this isn't a free market yet, so there's an argument to be made there...
>
>> How's that for "fairness" ?? I don't see how you can argue for treating
> smaller orgs more fairly by proposing to allow large companies to set
> whatever ridiculous price they want.
> The playing field is then level - all new entrants get to simply pay the
> going rate, with no (perceived?) favouritism towards incumbents or large
> entrants.  This assumes there's a reasonable relationship between the
> price of a /16 and the price of a /24, of course. Smith's "invisible
> hand" should, in theory, assure this...
>
>> I still don't get the needs argument at all. If an org can't show that it
> needs the addresses, then why do they need the addresses?
> Why should I have to disclose to a third party exactly what my plans
> are?  Even the IRS (or CRA, here) doesn't need that level of detail.
> I'm sure the NSA knows exactly what my plans are, but if I have deep
> enough pockets, I don't see why this resource - almost alone among all
> common resources both natural and artificial - should be forbidden to me.
>
> The only other example I can think of that is widely-known is New York
> (and elsewhere) Taxicab licenses... and almost everyone except taxicab
> license owners thinks that system is, shall we say, suboptimal.
>
>
>
> All of the points above here are posited on the fact that the US is, at
> least supposedly, a Smithian capitalist society that embraces the free
> market.
> I happen to think capitalism is fundamentally broken, but at the same
> time I'd rather let the market control what I can and can't do rather
> than a handful of regulators who I *know* don't have my interests at
> heart.  (Nor is that their mandate, I don't mean they're behaving
> maliciously!)
>
>
>
>
> In essence, above is theory, below is practical.
>
>
>
>
> Moving on to problems in the areas of policy, bias, and technical:
>> I agree that in the past it was difficult for small non-multihomed orgs 
>> to
> get space. But now that the minimum is a /24, it is so ridiculously easy.
> Does multihoming, per se, meet the (v4) needs test after the policy
> changes in 2014?  If yes, I can live with the situation.  If no, then
> small entities are still getting screwed.
> As a small-to-medium-sized enterprise, I probably NAT my entire company
> behind one or two (possibly not even contiguous) IP addresses, with
> maybe another half dozen publicly-visible servers. But if I want to be
> multi-homed, I must first use >64 public IPs, and come up with a reason
> to use >128 public IPs within a year. What if I just need those 6 or 7
> IPs to be highly available?
>
> Under the current NRPM, the only apparent way a small org can multi-home
> (v4) is to get a reassignment from an ISP, at which point they're stuck
> with that ISP pretty much forever, barring a painful and expensive
> renumbering process (say, ~1000 incoming static VPN tunnels, not all of
> which are under their direct control?).
>
> (I also note that the multihoming justification for IPv6 direct
> assignment is still there, even as the IPv4 justification is gone.)
>
> This is the primary example today of how the NRPM is heavily biased
> towards large organizations and SPs in the end-stages of IPv4 runout.
> Meanwhile, if there were no needs test for /24s, and a healthy transfer
> market, the organization would have the *choice* of paying for PI space
> or choosing alternate workarounds with higher TCO (e.g. DNS-based
> load-balancing, manual load-balancing, etc.). Right now, the small
> organization that doesn't wish to become a sharecropper for their
> incumbent SP is - as far as I can tell from reading the NRPM tonight -
> S.O.L.
>
> The fact they can still get a direct IPv6 allocation is meaningless
> until IPv6 deployment reaches some reasonable density of penetration
> (>40%, roughly), and I don't hear anyone here claiming that will happen
> until we actually run out of IPv4 space, and SPs are no longer able to
> acquire v4 space on demand.  Small organizations already can't acquire
> v4 space on demand - but they don't carry much weight with SPs.
>
> Yes, the reasoning here is *partially* circular, because there are two
> related problems converging to screw the small organization (which group
> includes most of my customers, and in fact, most businesses in Canada).
>
> Another way to view this, which has some relevancy to the problem
> (mentioned earlier today) with separation between ARIN and NANOG, unlike
> APNIC and RIPE which largely combine those functions, is that this
> wouldn't be an issue if global routing tables carried prefixes longer
> than /24.  The main reason that's the case today - as far as I can tell
> - is TCAM space on hardware routers, which directly translates into: 
> Money.
>
> [Rant about certain short-sighted & self-centered ISPs removed, didn't
> add any value to the discussion, no matter how much it made me feel 
> better.]
>
> Right now we have this mixture of regulatory oversight and "market"
> forces that indirectly control said regulatory oversight... this isn't
> IMHO a healthy model, and any steps we can take to move either to a pure
> regulatory function *or* a pure market-driven regime should improve the
> situation.  Given that ARIN is located in the U.S., a pure market-driven
> regime seems like a better idea right now.
>
> Regardless, small organizations are - right now - impossibly
> disadvantaged if they want PI space for any reason, especially 
> multi-homing.
>
>
> If I've misread the NRPM v2014.4 (2014-Sep-17), feel free to correct my
> interpretation... the only provision for low-usage multihoming of IPv4 I
> could find is 4.2.3.6, which is commercially punitive, at least in my
> region.
>
> -- 
> -Adam Thompson
>  athompso at athompso.net
>  Cell: +1 204 291-7950
>  Fax: +1 204 489-6515
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage 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 mike at iptrading.com  Sat Dec 20 10:29:35 2014
From: mike at iptrading.com (Mike Burns)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 10:29:35 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><20141218165833.GC33386@mx1.yitter.info><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>	<103763982.584088.1419040928589.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net><4E5FF3381B4D46909D299AB5F6C9136F@ncsscfoipoxes4>
	<54959082.6030006@rollernet.us>
Message-ID: <018CCF010180400888051719BD0B1EDB@ncsscfoipoxes4>

Hi Seth,

Thank you for the feedback.
That is more along the lines of APNIC and RIPE exhaust policy, which allows 
a one-time allocation from their remaining pools. I think there are good 
arguments for that, but I don't see why a one-time limit is similarly 
required for needs-free transfers of addresses already gone from the free 
pool.

Do you think the one-time limit will provide some protection against abuse 
that would make 2014-14 more palatable to you than the once-per  year limit?

Can you describe the abuse that might result from the once-per-year option 
that would be precluded by the once-per-lifetime method?

2014-14 is still a topic for discussion, and my understanding is that it 
could be modified, so if there is a change that would elicit your support, 
it's good that the shepherds know that.

Regards,
Mike

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Seth Mattinen" <sethm at rollernet.us>
To: <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness


> On 12/19/14, 6:31 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
>> Only a single /16 per year per entity could be received without a needs
>> test.
>
>
> I think 2014-14 should be a "one and done" endgame transfer option for 
> IPv4. That is, sure you can transfer up to a /16 without a needs test, but 
> once you've exercised that option you can't do it again.
>
> ~Seth
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 



From sethm at rollernet.us  Sat Dec 20 11:47:46 2014
From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 08:47:46 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <018CCF010180400888051719BD0B1EDB@ncsscfoipoxes4>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><20141218165833.GC33386@mx1.yitter.info><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>	<103763982.584088.1419040928589.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net><4E5FF3381B4D46909D299AB5F6C9136F@ncsscfoipoxes4>
	<54959082.6030006@rollernet.us>
	<018CCF010180400888051719BD0B1EDB@ncsscfoipoxes4>
Message-ID: <5495A832.1090109@rollernet.us>

On 12/20/14, 7:29 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
> Hi Seth,
>
> Thank you for the feedback.
> That is more along the lines of APNIC and RIPE exhaust policy, which
> allows a one-time allocation from their remaining pools. I think there
> are good arguments for that, but I don't see why a one-time limit is
> similarly required for needs-free transfers of addresses already gone
> from the free pool.
>
> Do you think the one-time limit will provide some protection against
> abuse that would make 2014-14 more palatable to you than the once-per
> year limit?
>
> Can you describe the abuse that might result from the once-per-year
> option that would be precluded by the once-per-lifetime method?
>

I don't think abuse is a major concern. There will always be some abuse 
and the NRPM doesn't need to become a 500 page thing of conditions.

I have to admit I'm not familiar with RIPE policy. The "one and done" 
thought is basically a compromise between people that outright oppose 
any transfers without a needs assessment. But the thing is it's been 
happening anyway: companies are contracting use of IP space and are 
either waiting either for an NRPM change to update whois or just using 
it without being able to update whois.

Since this is already happening (whether or not the community as a whole 
accepts it) 2014-14 will have the advantage of allowing whois to become 
more accurate.

I do agree that needs assessments on resources long gone from the free 
pool approaches pointless.

I also think that all of the restrictive rules are what brought us to 
this point, I don't see how making more restrictions will help. At this 
stage those rules should be relaxed. Fortunately some of them have been 
like lowering the minimum to /24 and removing the multihoming 
requirement, for example.


> 2014-14 is still a topic for discussion, and my understanding is that it
> could be modified, so if there is a change that would elicit your
> support, it's good that the shepherds know that.
>

I support 2014-14 as written.

~Seth


From owen at delong.com  Sat Dec 20 12:46:43 2014
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 09:46:43 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <21801226601340C3A31F53AC68092E15@ncsscfoipoxes4>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<20141218165833.GC33386@mx1.yitter.info>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<21801226601340C3A31F53AC68092E15@ncsscfoipoxes4>
Message-ID: <14C8842D-184D-4E8D-B9FE-2CE36DC4D03C@delong.com>

> And in this discussion there was suprising accord between Steven and Owen relating to the proposal to impose annual needs testing on all resource holders. I would suggest that the trading market imposes the most effective ongoing needs-test of all.  By their nature,

No, it is not. There are so many ways that market forces distort and incentivize in ways contrary to actual need that I don't know where to begin.
 
> corporations who recognize unused but valuable and perishable assets in their possession will seek to monetize them.

In some cases, however, monetizing them can occur in ways other than maximizing utilization. For example, denying your competitors access to those resources can be seen as a strategic mechanism for monetizing those assets. Holding them hoping that the lack of supply will drive their value higher can also be seen as a way to increase the ability to monetize them. Maximal monetization may be achieved through maximum fragmentation as well.

> The gimlet eye of the corporate accountant works unceasingly to bring IPv4 addresses into efficient use through the transfer market in a way that vague ARIN threats never could. We should work to make that market more predictable and robust in order to best harness those efficiencies.

That is an artificially rosy and IMHO naive version of what would likely happen in an unregulated unrestricted transfer market.


Owen



From owen at delong.com  Sat Dec 20 12:57:17 2014
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 09:57:17 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <4E5FF3381B4D46909D299AB5F6C9136F@ncsscfoipoxes4>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<20141218165833.GC33386@mx1.yitter.info>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<103763982.584088.1419040928589.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net>
	<4E5FF3381B4D46909D299AB5F6C9136F@ncsscfoipoxes4>
Message-ID: <8A10AA42-1C94-4B2E-BE16-5987C1EC6A6A@delong.com>





> On Dec 19, 2014, at 6:31 PM, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Randy,
> 
> But 2014-14 would make it impossible to "buy up all of the space and then set its own price."
> Only a single /16 per year per entity could be received without a needs test.
> The original /0 IPv4 space was fragmented originally into /8s and then into /16s, and then atomized and dispersed through another 20 years of worldwide allocations. There is just no way to re-aggregate the space into a single operational seller.
> Certainly not out of the sight of ARIN policy makers, who have the whip-hand here.

It's utterly simple to create artificial entities, if necessary.

There are only about 48,000 /16s en toto in all of the IPv4 unicast space. In reality, when you consider the potential transfer market, it's more likely on the order of 4,000. 

Want to bet that there are not organizations out there that would be able to create enough entities to absorbe 4,000 /16s pretty quickly for the sake of attempting to flip them at a speculative profit?

I think it's a bad bet.

Owen



From mike at iptrading.com  Sat Dec 20 13:45:09 2014
From: mike at iptrading.com (Mike Burns)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 13:45:09 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<20141218165833.GC33386@mx1.yitter.info>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<103763982.584088.1419040928589.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net>
	<4E5FF3381B4D46909D299AB5F6C9136F@ncsscfoipoxes4>
	<8A10AA42-1C94-4B2E-BE16-5987C1EC6A6A@delong.com>
Message-ID: <710FF9D42CA64346891E1E7E7711DF05@ncsscfoipoxes4>

It's utterly simple to create artificial entities, if necessary.

There are only about 48,000 /16s en toto in all of the IPv4 unicast space. 
In reality, when you consider the potential transfer market, it's more 
likely on the order of 4,000.

Want to bet that there are not organizations out there that would be able to 
create enough entities to absorbe 4,000 /16s pretty quickly for the sake of 
attempting to flip them at a speculative profit?

I think it's a bad bet.

Owen


Hi Owen,

That old chestnut again. So little faith in ARIN staff members to detect 
what would have to be monumental levels of fraud before any market 
manipulation could be achieved. ARIN legal staff has reviewed 2014-14, 
remember, and found your argument lacking.

First, where do you go to find 4,000 /16s? Not that I am accepting that 
number, I argue the potential transfer market as more like 12,000 /16 
equivalents (before more widespread CGN could enlarge that number).

How do you negotiate quietly with the many, many sellers whom you would have 
to spend a long time finding?

Or would you put an ad in the NY Times and hope it escaped the notice of the 
ARIN community, even though I assume it would be community members engaging 
in at least one side of these transactions?

Do you think ARIN staff, a group that has processed a few hundred transfers, 
would be able to even process those transactions in a timeframe and manner 
invisible to policymakers?

And what is the entity willing to engage in arguable fraud, who also has the 
desire and finances to invest billions of dollars in an asset whose value 
will decline with every new incentive to transition to IPv6?

Or instead of one or two nefarious actors, you assume there would be many 
smaller fraudsters engaging in enough rampant speculation to impact the 
market.

And how many flippers are active in a market with falling prices and an 
asset value of zero?

And if they flip them to a person who needs them, and makes money in the 
process, what, exactly is the evil?

Where is the evidence of anyone, anywhere, buying Ipv4 addresses with an 
intent to profit through their resale?
Unless you can provide some, why do we hold policy in thrall to the 
bogeyman?

I guess that's a long way of saying I would absolutely take your bet.

Regards,
Mike












From sethm at rollernet.us  Sat Dec 20 15:47:08 2014
From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 12:47:08 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <21801226601340C3A31F53AC68092E15@ncsscfoipoxes4>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><20141218165833.GC33386@mx1.yitter.info><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net>	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<21801226601340C3A31F53AC68092E15@ncsscfoipoxes4>
Message-ID: <5495E04C.8080102@rollernet.us>

On 12/19/14, 17:05, Mike Burns wrote:
> And in this discussion there was suprising accord between Steven and
> Owen relating to the proposal to impose annual needs testing on all
> resource holders. I would suggest that the trading market imposes the
> most effective ongoing needs-test of all.


I see continuous auditing as hurting small orgs the most. Large orgs 
have staff dedicated to that kind of stuff with no burden to them. Also, 
a small org could have a large customer cancel in bad timing causing 
them to fail an audit whereas a large org's churn differential has less 
impact to their numbers.

~Seth


From owen at delong.com  Sat Dec 20 18:19:39 2014
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 15:19:39 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <710FF9D42CA64346891E1E7E7711DF05@ncsscfoipoxes4>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<20141218165833.GC33386@mx1.yitter.info>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<103763982.584088.1419040928589.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net>
	<4E5FF3381B4D46909D299AB5F6C9136F@ncsscfoipoxes4>
	<8A10AA42-1C94-4B2E-BE16-5987C1EC6A6A@delong.com>
	<710FF9D42CA64346891E1E7E7711DF05@ncsscfoipoxes4>
Message-ID: <4A0CBBC3-2441-40BE-9B61-C29760331477@delong.com>


> On Dec 20, 2014, at 10:45 , Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
> 
> It's utterly simple to create artificial entities, if necessary.
> 
> There are only about 48,000 /16s en toto in all of the IPv4 unicast space. In reality, when you consider the potential transfer market, it's more likely on the order of 4,000.
> 
> Want to bet that there are not organizations out there that would be able to create enough entities to absorbe 4,000 /16s pretty quickly for the sake of attempting to flip them at a speculative profit?
> 
> I think it's a bad bet.
> 
> Owen
> 
> 
> Hi Owen,
> 
> That old chestnut again. So little faith in ARIN staff members to detect what would have to be monumental levels of fraud before any market manipulation could be achieved. ARIN legal staff has reviewed 2014-14, remember, and found your argument lacking.

No, legal stated that there were no issues of liability for ARIN with the policy. The potential for fraud was not stated one way or another by the legal team in the staff and legal review.

> First, where do you go to find 4,000 /16s? Not that I am accepting that number, I argue the potential transfer market as more like 12,000 /16 equivalents (before more widespread CGN could enlarge that number).

I figure there are about 12 /8s or so that are well known to be underutilized and that a proportional number of other blocks would account for another 4 or so /8s worth of space. Admittedly, like any quantity described at this point, it's mostly a SWAG, but I consider it a fairly educated SWAG. YMMV.

Where do you get 12,000?

> How do you negotiate quietly with the many, many sellers whom you would have to spend a long time finding?

Why would you have to negotiate quietly?

> Or would you put an ad in the NY Times and hope it escaped the notice of the ARIN community, even though I assume it would be community members engaging in at least one side of these transactions?

Why would an ad in the NY Times have to escape the notice of the ARIN community?

Advertise that your organization would like to buy a /n (whatever size gets passed with 2014-14 if it gets adopted).

Then, as the calls come in, change your org name after each successful call. Nobody looking at the ad knows you're shopping for more than one. People who compare notes think they're dealing with different organizations. I'm not sure how you expect ARIN to put it together as the transfer requests come in.

> Do you think ARIN staff, a group that has processed a few hundred transfers, would be able to even process those transactions in a timeframe and manner invisible to policymakers?

It doesn't have to be invisible, it just has to look like a lot of different unrelated transfers.

> And what is the entity willing to engage in arguable fraud, who also has the desire and finances to invest billions of dollars in an asset whose value will decline with every new incentive to transition to IPv6?

You don't have to corner the market to manipulate it. You just need to change its visible nature a little and then watch the lemmings do what you encouraged them to do. Especially in a small market.

> Or instead of one or two nefarious actors, you assume there would be many smaller fraudsters engaging in enough rampant speculation to impact the market.

I see no reason to believe that there would not be some combination of actors across the spectrum. Under the proposed policy, they wouldn't even necessarily be nefarious or operating fraudulent. A bit deceitful, perhaps, but through omission rather than falsification if they played it right.

> And how many flippers are active in a market with falling prices and an asset value of zero?

You continue to assume falling prices, but there's nothing to indicate any likelihood that will be the case for some time.

> And if they flip them to a person who needs them, and makes money in the process, what, exactly is the evil?

The evil is driving up the price for the person who had need and should have been able to obtain them at the lower cost. I have no interest in turning the IPv4 community resource pool into a source of monetization for parasites who offer no value to the community in the process.

> Where is the evidence of anyone, anywhere, buying Ipv4 addresses with an intent to profit through their resale?
> Unless you can provide some, why do we hold policy in thrall to the bogeyman?

Since you are the one arguing for a change in policy, I believe the burden of proof rests with you to prove that the policy will not damage the interests of the community rather than placing the burden on me to prove that it will.

> I guess that's a long way of saying I would absolutely take your bet.

Unfortunately, since this is a case where what would be bet is the best interests of the community, the stakes aren't mine to wager, nor are they yours.

Owen



From matthew at matthew.at  Sat Dec 20 19:28:38 2014
From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 16:28:38 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <103763982.584088.1419040928589.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<20141218165833.GC33386@mx1.yitter.info>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<103763982.584088.1419040928589.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net>
Message-ID: <35E222CB-F2E8-4698-B9CA-44BE4C04334C@matthew.at>

A large company can already lock up all the IP space it wants outside of the transfer policy, through rights of first refusal, purchase lock-ins, leasing, or any combination of things, depending on whether or not they need to use some of it in the interim. (And rumor is that some/all of some /8s are already locked up this way)... 

But since nobody has called me to lock up my space for future transfer, I can only assume they whoever might speculatively do this either missed me or doesn't exist, most likely the latter.

Allowing the transactions to become recorded transfers has zero bearing on your concerns below, though does (in the case of leading) make it easier to see who is really using the space.

Matthew Kaufman

(Sent from my iPhone)

> On Dec 19, 2014, at 6:02 PM, Randy Carpenter <rcarpen at network1.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> A capitalistic model does not work for a finite resource like IP addresses. All that would happen is that a large company could just buy up all of the space, and then set its own price for everyone else. How's that for "fairness" ?? I don't see how you can argue for treating smaller orgs more fairly by proposing to allow large companies to set whatever ridiculous price they want.
> 
> I still don't get the needs argument at all. If an org can't show that it needs the addresses, then why do they need the addresses?
> 
> I agree that in the past it was difficult for small non-multihomed orgs to get space. But now that the minimum is a /24, it is so ridiculously easy.
> 
> -Randy
> 
> ----- On Dec 19, 2014, at 6:59 PM, Steven Ryerse SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com wrote:
> 
>> I'm not being ignorant I am trying to get to bottom of the discussion.  I wish
>> ARINs resources were issued by ARIN in a capitalistic manner.  Then as long as
>> an Org is willing to pay the going rate resources could be acquired guaranteed
>> as long as there are sellers.  There is no needs testing in that model just
>> supply and demand and the ability to pay.  How do we change to the Capitalistic
>> model from what we got now?
>> 
>> 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 Ted Mittelstaedt
>> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 11:23 AM
>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>> 
>> First point here Steven is you have completely ignored and failed to respond to
>> my first comment regarding why ARIN is the way it is - because it exists in a
>> capitalistic society - because you have no answer for that.
>> 
>> I do not really believe for a second that you really want an honest debate on
>> this issue.  What you are doing is sitting back and cherry picking weak
>> arguments to respond to, and ignoring strong ones.  So I am not going to waste
>> much more time with you on this.
>> 
>> But I will say that your comment:
>> 
>> " If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that really make it OK to
>> start denying small Orgs .com domain name requests?"
>> 
>> is one of the most ignorant I've seen on this list in quite a while.
>> 
>> The DNS system exists to make IP addresses that are hard to remember, replaced
>> by domain names that are easy to remember.  The average English speaking adult
>> knows about 50,000 English words.  There's over 100 million .com domain names
>> registered at this point.  We have far and away exceeded the number of English
>> .com one word domain names that an average person would know.
>> 
>> Therefore we have long ago "run out" of .com domain names.  Oh sure, you can
>> still register new .com domain names that are nonsense like
>> fdgcjghhgeafvrar.com or you can make up elaborate long sentences like
>> thisismynewdomainanemisntitkewel.com and register those names, but neither of
>> those meets the bar of being an easy to remember name.  They are, in fact,
>> harder to remember than the IP addresses that they are supposed to make "easy
>> to remember"
>> 
>> There
>> 
>>> On 12/18/2014 9:15 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>> Thanks for your comments!  Actually the total number of possible .com
>>> permutations is limited too.  IPv4 addresses and .com domain names are both
>>> just Internet resources that Internet users need to use the Internet.
>>> Obviously there are less IPv4 addresses than .com combinations, but IPv4 is
>>> still the only way to access most of the Internet.  While ARIN has resources to
>>> allocate - I'm absolutely fine limiting the size of an allocation to match the
>>> size of an Org and their network, but I'm not fine with denying an Org any
>>> resources.
>>> 
>>> Also IPv4 cannot somehow be saved by conservation.  Regardless of any policy,
>>> ARIN will run out of IPv4 probably within the next year.  If .com domain names
>>> were nearing runout, would that really make it OK to start denying small Orgs
>>> .com domain name requests?
>>> 
>>> 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 Andrew Sullivan
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:59 AM
>>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 04:35:41PM +0000, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> If it is not OK to deny the Minimum domain (available) name to an Org, then it
>>>> isn?t OK to deny an Org the Minimum  IP allocation.  They are both Internet
>>>> resources.
>>> 
>>> The analogy seems faulty to me.  The number space is finite (and in the case of
>>> v4, not very large).  The name space in any given registry is admittedly not
>>> infinite, since (1) it's limited to labels 63 octets long from the LDH
>>> repertoire and (2) useful mnemonics are generally shorter than 63 octets and
>>> usually a wordlike thing in some natural language.  There are, however, lots of
>>> registries (more all the time!
>>> Thanks, ICANN!); and last I checked neither info nor biz was anything close to
>>> the size (or utility) of com, even though they've both been around since 2001
>>> and have rather similar registration rules.  So, there is an argument in favour
>>> of tight rules for allocation of v4 numbers that is not available in the name
>>> case.
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> 
>>> A
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Andrew Sullivan
>>> ajs at anvilwalrusden.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.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PPML
>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>>> Unsubscribe or manage 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 ppml at rs.seastrom.com  Sat Dec 20 20:05:50 2014
From: ppml at rs.seastrom.com (Rob Seastrom)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 20:05:50 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54438E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	(Steven Ryerse's message of "Fri, 19 Dec 2014 21:28:06 +0000")
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net
	works.com> <0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974
	D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CAMfXtQwj_-=1rm5rSq0LD+VbD2_mu9JWZEx2fyL5siTV-O4xmQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B38D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<535D0B74-4969-4FA3-B496-A4C4ECCC68A8@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54438E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <86h9wpu80h.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>


Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> writes:

> But you ignore the reality of life in a small Org that has limited
> resources.  They are spending all their time just trying to keep
> their doors open and don't have the extra time to participate even
> if they want to.

Having worked at tiny organizations for the majority of the time I
served on the ARIN AC as well as NANOG committees and board, this
argument rings hollow.

At the end of the day, it's a matter of priorities.  Prudence would
dictate that one participate in governance and standards bodies if
they are doing stuff that directly affects one's business.  Prudence
also dictates that one follow BCPs regarding putting nameservers for
one's zone on topologically distinct networks.

   merlot:~ rs$ dig eclipse-networks.com. ns | grep -w A
   ns1.eclipseinternet.com. 172800           IN A 198.199.199.191
   ns2.eclipseinternet.com. 172800           IN A 198.199.199.192
   merlot:~ rs$ 

In both cases, people sometimes prioritize differently, and they often
get away with it.  There may even be valid business reasons for doing
so (cost outweighs benefit for instance).

But if you choose to not participate, you've still made a choice.

-r



From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Sun Dec 21 12:42:55 2014
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 17:42:55 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <9CFA900A-51E3-4339-81B1-78BAA56C223C@gmail.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net
	works.com> <0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<20141218165833.GC33386@mx1.yitter.info>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<21801226601340C3A31F53AC68092E15@ncsscfoipoxes4>
	<9CFA900A-51E3-4339-81B1-78BAA56C223C@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A565DBA@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

Very pointed and very true!  

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: Martin Hannigan [mailto:hannigan at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 8:12 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: Steven Ryerse; Ted Mittelstaedt; <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness


Socialism dies from economic failure or revolution.  

Needs tests are dead. But beware the #IANA Transition. 

Best,

-M<



> On Dec 19, 2014, at 20:05, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
> 
> How do we change to the Capitalistic model from what we got now?
>> 
>> Steven L Ryerse
> 
> 
> Thanks for the interesting discussion.
> Might I say in answer to your question above that a step towards that change would be 2014-14?
> Small operators could purchase a /24 without a needs test, yet the needs test remains in place for large transfers which some feel could imperil the market.
> 
> And in this discussion there was suprising accord between Steven and Owen relating to the proposal to impose annual needs testing on all resource holders. I would suggest that the trading market imposes the most effective ongoing needs-test of all.  By their nature, corporations who recognize unused but valuable and perishable assets in their possession will seek to monetize them. The gimlet eye of the corporate accountant works unceasingly to bring IPv4 addresses into efficient use through the transfer market in a way that vague ARIN threats never could. We should work to make that market more predictable and robust in order to best harness those efficiencies.
> 
> 
> Long version of above, feel free to ignore:
> 
> 2014-14 would remove much of the uncertainty in the market, since it would cover most transactions and allow the buyer and seller to particpate without the uncertainty introduced by third-party veto in the form of a failed needs-test. IPv4 transactions are still a novel idea outside a small group of people. Many international transactions have built-in levels of FUD which are high even before considering the novelty of the core transaction and the natural reluctance to wire an up-front international payment for an asset so virtual in nature.
> 
> Likewise for sellers, who are asked to initiate the transfer request with an entity (ARIN) which may or may not consummate the transaction, at its sole discretion. There is policy and procedure for the transfer of IPv4 resources when the request follows policy, but what procedure and policy is available to the seller if the transfer succeeds, but some contractual breach occurs between buyer and seller whose penalty is the reversion of rights to the Seller? Can the Seller sell his address rights under Net 30 terms, confident that ARIN (and potentially and coordinatedly APNIC) would revert Whois records to their original state if the breach could be demonstrated? Would that breach have to be demonstrated to a judge first, would ARIN respond only to a judge's order? Would ARIN respond to an Asian judge's order, or vice versa? FUD.
> 
> Can an IPv4 asset possibly function as security if it can not be reliably and predictably transferred? I know a small business that wanted to borrow some money and secure it with their IPv4 stock, and use the funds to grow their business (thus utilizing their IPv4 stock). But who would make the loan if they could never collect on the secured asset?
> 
> As a broker it would make transactions simpler and smoother for buyers if I could purchase a /16,  have it as inventory, and then sell in, say, /24s. Today, when buyers want a very small block it is hard for them to find a broker interested, because the size makes it not worth the broker's time. And when a seller comes to broker and wants to sell a /24, the same logic applies. Few sellers with /16s are willing to endure 256 transactions in order to monetize their block. Net result is wasted space and unmet need. But if the broker had /16 in inventory and could eliminate all costs involved with a Seller's participation, selling individual /24s might be profitable,  allowing the need of the smallest operator to be met. With 2014-14 it could at least be attempted.
> 
> If all involved knew that the RIRs would be passive registrars of the transfers, FUD would be reduced and the market made more vital in my opinion.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN 
> Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage 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  Sun Dec 21 14:41:05 2014
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 19:41:05 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <54953C9D.1050303@ipinc.net>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net
	works.com><0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com><5B9E90747FA297
	4
	D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><20141218165833.G
	C33386@mx1.yitter.info><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAI
	L.eclipse-networks.com> <549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<54953C9D.1050303@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A5671BF@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

When the government meddles and plays favorites then capitalism stops working.  At the low end of allocation policy it needs to be capitalistic and all we need is the equivalent of the Anti-Trust laws in policy to keep the big guys in check.  2014-14 moves in this direction.  We certainly don't need Anti-Trust equivalent policies on the low end of allocations.  

Some folks here respond to me as if I'm a heretic and my input is radical and if implemented the world would somehow end.  I disagree.  I have recently been advocating removing needs test just from the ARIN Minimum block size allocation and my proposed 2014-18 would have done that.  A proposal to do a whole lot more than I have proposed - not only has been proposed in the RIPE region - but tweaked, improved, and passed - as ripe-604.  Are the folks who proposed and voted to pass ripe-604 heretics too?  I think not.  I think they realized that needs testing couldn't save IPv4 and wanted to level the playing field so they passed ripe-604. The world has not ended in Europe because of it.  

I think we need an ARIN equivalent of ripe-604 but I figured that I would start at the low end where I think small Orgs would benefit just trying to remove the needs testing for Orgs who just need the minimum and don't need a minimum block more than once per year.  This would be a pretty small change to current policy and if advocating for that makes me a heretic then so be it!  My two cents.  

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: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net] 
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 4:09 AM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness


Your not talking about a Capitalistic model your talking about a Laissez-faire model.  While this might make some Libertarians have wet dreams it is a recipe for anarchy which is why no economy on Earth operates this way.

What is generally understood about Capitalism today is that the catch-22 of Capitalism is that if you have a market that is completely controlled by the government, that is the opposite of Capitalism - but if you have a market that has zero government controls it immediately devolves into a set of monopolies which are also the opposite of Capitalism.

In short, the cost of real economic freedom is constant government tinkering.

I realize it's difficult to understand for a lot of people.  The Tea Party in the United States is filled with people who don't understand it.

ARIN resource allocations are as close to Capitalism today as we are going to get.  Once the transfer market was approved, that ended the last vestige of authoritarian control by ARIN.

The needs testing is far less intrusive than government controls on automobiles, yet nobody would argue today the US does not have competition in the automobile market.

Ted

On 12/19/2014 3:59 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> I'm not being ignorant I am trying to get to bottom of the discussion.  I wish ARINs resources were issued by ARIN in a capitalistic manner.  Then as long as an Org is willing to pay the going rate resources could be acquired guaranteed as long as there are sellers.  There is no needs testing in that model just supply and demand and the ability to pay.  How do we change to the Capitalistic model from what we got now?
>
> 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 Ted Mittelstaedt
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 11:23 AM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>
> First point here Steven is you have completely ignored and failed to respond to my first comment regarding why ARIN is the way it is - because it exists in a capitalistic society - because you have no answer for that.
>
> I do not really believe for a second that you really want an honest debate on this issue.  What you are doing is sitting back and cherry picking weak arguments to respond to, and ignoring strong ones.  So I am not going to waste much more time with you on this.
>
> But I will say that your comment:
>
> " If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that really make it OK to start denying small Orgs .com domain name requests?"
>
> is one of the most ignorant I've seen on this list in quite a while.
>
> The DNS system exists to make IP addresses that are hard to remember, replaced by domain names that are easy to remember.  The average English speaking adult knows about 50,000 English words.  There's over 100 million .com domain names registered at this point.  We have far and away exceeded the number of English .com one word domain names that an average person would know.
>
> Therefore we have long ago "run out" of .com domain names.  Oh sure, you can still register new .com domain names that are nonsense like fdgcjghhgeafvrar.com or you can make up elaborate long sentences like thisismynewdomainanemisntitkewel.com and register those names, but neither of those meets the bar of being an easy to remember name.  They are, in fact, harder to remember than the IP addresses that they are supposed to make "easy to remember"
>
> There
>
> On 12/18/2014 9:15 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>> Thanks for your comments!  Actually the total number of possible .com permutations is limited too.  IPv4 addresses and .com domain names are both just Internet resources that Internet users need to use the Internet.  Obviously there are less IPv4 addresses than .com combinations, but IPv4 is still the only way to access most of the Internet.  While ARIN has resources to allocate - I'm absolutely fine limiting the size of an allocation to match the size of an Org and their network, but I'm not fine with denying an Org any resources.
>>
>> Also IPv4 cannot somehow be saved by conservation.  Regardless of any policy, ARIN will run out of IPv4 probably within the next year.  If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that really make it OK to start denying small Orgs .com domain name requests?
>>
>> 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 Andrew Sullivan
>> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:59 AM
>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 04:35:41PM +0000, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>>
>>> If it is not OK to deny the Minimum domain (available) name to an Org, then it isn?t OK to deny an Org the Minimum  IP allocation.  They are both Internet resources.
>>>
>>
>> The analogy seems faulty to me.  The number space is finite (and in the case of v4, not very large).  The name space in any given registry is admittedly not infinite, since (1) it's limited to labels 63 octets long from the LDH repertoire and (2) useful mnemonics are generally shorter than 63 octets and usually a wordlike thing in some natural language.  There are, however, lots of registries (more all the time!
>> Thanks, ICANN!); and last I checked neither info nor biz was anything close to the size (or utility) of com, even though they've both been around since 2001 and have rather similar registration rules.  So, there is an argument in favour of tight rules for allocation of v4 numbers that is not available in the name case.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> A
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> ajs at anvilwalrusden.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.
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN 
>> Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage 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  Sun Dec 21 14:46:25 2014
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 19:46:25 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <000601d01c62$87202d30$95608790$@iname.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net
	works.com>	<0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>	<5B9E90747FA29
	74D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>	<2014121816583
	3.GC33386@mx1.yitter.info>	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-
	MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>	<549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net>	<5B9E90747FA2974D91
	A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>	<103763982.584088.1
	419040928589.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net><5494F05C.3020104@athompso.net>
	<000601d01c62$87202d30$95608790$@iname.com>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A5682AF@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

So why then after ripe-604 has been implemented for several months in their region are they not seeing that happen.  They left some controls in their polices for RIPE to handle that if it happens.  

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 Frank Bulk
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 9:38 AM
To: 'Adam Thompson'; Randy Carpenter; ARIN-PPML at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness

For those of us in the "NAT is bad"
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v26BAlfWBm8) camp, the risk I perceive with a purely capitalistic model is that many organizations will sell their IPv4 address space to the highest bidder (who may hoard it) and even more NAT will be deployed.  While the effects of CGN are documented (i.e.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7021), I think that many network operators will (choose to) ignore those (to the detriment of their end users) or capitalize on that by charging extra to those who don't want to go through CGN.  In reaction, applications and services will be further modified to address CGN, the opposite of my preferred approach towards end-to-end communication.

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Adam Thompson
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 9:43 PM
To: Randy Carpenter; ARIN-PPML at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness

On 14-12-19 08:02 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
> A capitalistic model does not work for a finite resource like IP
addresses.
I'm not even a Smithian capitalist, and I see the first problem here:

Why doesn't it work?

Market stability will be reached according to every economic theory I've read, regardless of whether the resources are finite or not. It may be that stability means a gradually-increasing price for a while followed by rapid inflation, but estimates I've heard posit that IPv6 deployment will be widespread by the time the market price would otherwise skyrocket.

> All that would happen is that a large company could just buy up all of 
> the
space, and then set its own price for everyone else.
Really?  How many universities and large organizations have /8s, /9s, and /10s, that they would almost immediately start the process of monetizing?  It's "easy" (*cough*) - switch to NAT'd private addresses, switch to IPv6, whatever.  Heck, simple disaggregation of large blocks would release tons of /16 and longer prefixes based on the usage patterns I've seen at most large organizations.  ISPs are not generally included in this, they tend to use what they have. IBM, HP/Compaq/DEC, MIT, Princeton, Harvard, etc., etc., however, are the poster children for low usage.  They just don't have a big enough incentive to worry about it yet.

Also, see my previous posts for references to academic treatment of the fact that hoarding *isn't a bad thing* in the free market.  Of course, this isn't a free market yet, so there's an argument to be made there...

> How's that for "fairness" ?? I don't see how you can argue for 
> treating
smaller orgs more fairly by proposing to allow large companies to set whatever ridiculous price they want.
The playing field is then level - all new entrants get to simply pay the going rate, with no (perceived?) favouritism towards incumbents or large entrants.  This assumes there's a reasonable relationship between the price of a /16 and the price of a /24, of course. Smith's "invisible hand" should, in theory, assure this...

> I still don't get the needs argument at all. If an org can't show that 
> it
needs the addresses, then why do they need the addresses?
Why should I have to disclose to a third party exactly what my plans are?  Even the IRS (or CRA, here) doesn't need that level of detail.  
I'm sure the NSA knows exactly what my plans are, but if I have deep enough pockets, I don't see why this resource - almost alone among all common resources both natural and artificial - should be forbidden to me.

The only other example I can think of that is widely-known is New York (and elsewhere) Taxicab licenses... and almost everyone except taxicab license owners thinks that system is, shall we say, suboptimal.



All of the points above here are posited on the fact that the US is, at least supposedly, a Smithian capitalist society that embraces the free market.
I happen to think capitalism is fundamentally broken, but at the same time I'd rather let the market control what I can and can't do rather than a handful of regulators who I *know* don't have my interests at heart.  (Nor is that their mandate, I don't mean they're behaving
maliciously!)




In essence, above is theory, below is practical.




Moving on to problems in the areas of policy, bias, and technical:
> I agree that in the past it was difficult for small non-multihomed 
> orgs to
get space. But now that the minimum is a /24, it is so ridiculously easy.
Does multihoming, per se, meet the (v4) needs test after the policy changes in 2014?  If yes, I can live with the situation.  If no, then small entities are still getting screwed.
As a small-to-medium-sized enterprise, I probably NAT my entire company behind one or two (possibly not even contiguous) IP addresses, with maybe another half dozen publicly-visible servers. But if I want to be multi-homed, I must first use >64 public IPs, and come up with a reason to use >128 public IPs within a year. What if I just need those 6 or 7 IPs to be highly available?

Under the current NRPM, the only apparent way a small org can multi-home
(v4) is to get a reassignment from an ISP, at which point they're stuck with that ISP pretty much forever, barring a painful and expensive renumbering process (say, ~1000 incoming static VPN tunnels, not all of which are under their direct control?).

(I also note that the multihoming justification for IPv6 direct assignment is still there, even as the IPv4 justification is gone.)

This is the primary example today of how the NRPM is heavily biased towards large organizations and SPs in the end-stages of IPv4 runout.  
Meanwhile, if there were no needs test for /24s, and a healthy transfer market, the organization would have the *choice* of paying for PI space or choosing alternate workarounds with higher TCO (e.g. DNS-based load-balancing, manual load-balancing, etc.). Right now, the small organization that doesn't wish to become a sharecropper for their incumbent SP is - as far as I can tell from reading the NRPM tonight - S.O.L.

The fact they can still get a direct IPv6 allocation is meaningless until IPv6 deployment reaches some reasonable density of penetration (>40%, roughly), and I don't hear anyone here claiming that will happen until we actually run out of IPv4 space, and SPs are no longer able to acquire v4 space on demand.  Small organizations already can't acquire
v4 space on demand - but they don't carry much weight with SPs.

Yes, the reasoning here is *partially* circular, because there are two related problems converging to screw the small organization (which group includes most of my customers, and in fact, most businesses in Canada).

Another way to view this, which has some relevancy to the problem (mentioned earlier today) with separation between ARIN and NANOG, unlike APNIC and RIPE which largely combine those functions, is that this wouldn't be an issue if global routing tables carried prefixes longer than /24.  The main reason that's the case today - as far as I can tell
- is TCAM space on hardware routers, which directly translates into: Money.

[Rant about certain short-sighted & self-centered ISPs removed, didn't add any value to the discussion, no matter how much it made me feel better.]

Right now we have this mixture of regulatory oversight and "market" 
forces that indirectly control said regulatory oversight... this isn't IMHO a healthy model, and any steps we can take to move either to a pure regulatory function *or* a pure market-driven regime should improve the situation.  Given that ARIN is located in the U.S., a pure market-driven regime seems like a better idea right now.

Regardless, small organizations are - right now - impossibly disadvantaged if they want PI space for any reason, especially multi-homing.


If I've misread the NRPM v2014.4 (2014-Sep-17), feel free to correct my 
interpretation... the only provision for low-usage multihoming of IPv4 I 
could find is 4.2.3.6, which is commercially punitive, at least in my 
region.

-- 
-Adam Thompson
  athompso at athompso.net
  Cell: +1 204 291-7950
  Fax: +1 204 489-6515

_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage 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  Sun Dec 21 15:00:02 2014
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 20:00:02 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <5495E04C.8080102@rollernet.us>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net
	works.com><0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com><5B9E90747FA2974
	D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><20141218165833.G
	C33386@mx1.yitter.info><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL
	.eclipse-networks.com><549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net>	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FC
	FA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><21801226601340C3A31F53AC68092E15@ncsscfoipoxes4>
	<5495E04C.8080102@rollernet.us>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A5693F9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

I definitely prefer removing needs testing in a reasonable way.  If that can't be achieved and so far this Community seems to be against it, then lets force everyone to live by the policies for both new and renewal allocations.  I think that would have the effect of this Community making changes to the policy to improve them and it might also have the effect of unneeded resources being returned for other to obtain.  

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: Saturday, December 20, 2014 3:47 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness

On 12/19/14, 17:05, Mike Burns wrote:
> And in this discussion there was suprising accord between Steven and 
> Owen relating to the proposal to impose annual needs testing on all 
> resource holders. I would suggest that the trading market imposes the 
> most effective ongoing needs-test of all.


I see continuous auditing as hurting small orgs the most. Large orgs have staff dedicated to that kind of stuff with no burden to them. Also, a small org could have a large customer cancel in bad timing causing them to fail an audit whereas a large org's churn differential has less impact to their numbers.

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

From sethm at rollernet.us  Sun Dec 21 15:11:46 2014
From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 12:11:46 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A5693F9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net	works.com><0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com><5B9E90747FA2974	D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><20141218165833.G	C33386@mx1.yitter.info><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL	.eclipse-networks.com><549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net>	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FC	FA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><21801226601340C3A31F53AC68092E15@ncsscfoipoxes4>
	<5495E04C.8080102@rollernet.us>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A5693F9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <54972982.7070104@rollernet.us>

On 12/21/14, 12:00 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> I definitely prefer removing needs testing in a reasonable way.  If that can't be achieved and so far this Community seems to be against it, then lets force everyone to live by the policies for both new and renewal allocations.  I think that would have the effect of this Community making changes to the policy to improve them and it might also have the effect of unneeded resources being returned for other to obtain.


Good luck.

~Seth


From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Sun Dec 21 16:57:51 2014
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 21:57:51 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <86h9wpu80h.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net
	works.com>
	<0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA
	1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><CAMfXtQwj_-=1rm5rSq0LD+VbD
	2_mu9JWZEx2fyL5siTV-O4xmQ@mail.gmail.com><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120
	16A52B38D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><535D0B74-4969-4FA3-B496-A4C4ECCC68
	A8@delong.com><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54438E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<86h9wpu80h.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A56976F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

Well Rob, we would have both of our name servers on topologically distinct networks but ARIN denied our small IPv4 allocation request!  You proved my point that small Orgs have it tougher than larger ones getting resources.  

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: Rob Seastrom [mailto:rs at seastrom.com] On Behalf Of Rob Seastrom
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 8:06 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: 'Owen DeLong'; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness


Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> writes:

> But you ignore the reality of life in a small Org that has limited 
> resources.  They are spending all their time just trying to keep their 
> doors open and don't have the extra time to participate even if they 
> want to.

Having worked at tiny organizations for the majority of the time I served on the ARIN AC as well as NANOG committees and board, this argument rings hollow.

At the end of the day, it's a matter of priorities.  Prudence would dictate that one participate in governance and standards bodies if they are doing stuff that directly affects one's business.  Prudence also dictates that one follow BCPs regarding putting nameservers for one's zone on topologically distinct networks.

In both cases, people sometimes prioritize differently, and they often get away with it.  There may even be valid business reasons for doing so (cost outweighs benefit for instance).

But if you choose to not participate, you've still made a choice.

-r


From sethm at rollernet.us  Sun Dec 21 18:23:55 2014
From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 15:23:55 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A56976F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net	works.com>	<0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA	1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><CAMfXtQwj_-=1rm5rSq0LD+VbD	2_mu9JWZEx2fyL5siTV-O4xmQ@mail.gmail.com><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120	16A52B38D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><535D0B74-4969-4FA3-B496-A4C4ECCC68	A8@delong.com><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54438E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>	<86h9wpu80h.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A56976F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <5497568B.1090206@rollernet.us>

On 12/21/14 1:57 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> Well Rob, we would have both of our name servers on topologically distinct networks but ARIN denied our small IPv4 allocation request!  You proved my point that small Orgs have it tougher than larger ones getting resources.


No, small orgs do not have it tougher. An inability to grok the NRPM is 
maybe a personal difficulty, but not a barrier one that warrants policy 
change. I say this as someone who just got ARIN resources to start up an 
IX this September and other resources previously like a /22 for another 
org back when I had to have two /24's from upstreams (and an additional 
sometime later that was denied at first but accepted on the second try). 
I don't think orgs get any smaller or more difficult than trying to 
gather support to justify the launch of an IX in a region where such a 
thing is considered foreign concept, yet getting the resources from ARIN 
was the easiest step.

I see nothing in your arguments that would makes things easier for a 
small org, speaking as one myself that you claim would benefit. I cringe 
every time I see claims of "speaking for small orgs". Honestly, it comes 
off as a self serving agenda with a desire to harm the community to 
benefit one person. I have been denied in the past but what I didn't do 
was blow up at the community or develop a vendetta; it made me work to 
present a better justification for next time. Too bad if "work" is hard 
for a small org, suck it up or get a different job. If ARIN denied you 
however many times for resources I'm starting to think it deserved to be 
denied, but without an unbiased party making it available for the 
community to review we'll never know the truth.

~Seth


From mike at iptrading.com  Sun Dec 21 18:48:35 2014
From: mike at iptrading.com (Mike Burns)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 18:48:35 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<20141218165833.GC33386@mx1.yitter.info>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<103763982.584088.1419040928589.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net>
	<4E5FF3381B4D46909D299AB5F6C9136F@ncsscfoipoxes4>
	<8A10AA42-1C94-4B2E-BE16-5987C1EC6A6A@delong.com>
	<710FF9D42CA64346891E1E7E7711DF05@ncsscfoipoxes4>
	<4A0CBBC3-2441-40BE-9B61-C29760331477@delong.com>
Message-ID: <4DF7CE172AA14C41BDEBFDC4BE3B7AAC@ncsscfoipoxes4>

Hi Owen,

2014-14 calls for a /16 limit.
You expect some organization to advertise they will buy a /16, and then just 
change names and prosecute a series of transactions, each requiring a new 
ORG-ID. You know, there are a growing group of people who are striving every 
day to advertise the same thing. Brokers like me. We have to balance the 
advertising costs with the deal profits. There is no secret place where you 
can place an ad and magically find enough /16 sellers to change this market. 
And have sellers be serially faked into believing they are talking to 
separately spun-up organizations. And these organizations, though legally 
separate, are shells which are to collude under the control of some existing 
entity with billions of dollars to spend? An entity who is not afraid of 
driving us faster towards IPv6 and a zero value to IPv4? I deal with ARIN 
quite a bit, and I don't for one minute believe that they could start seeing 
ORG-IDS spun up, and then each receiving a needs-free transfer, repeated 
thousands of times, and fail to notice it. Nor do I believe it could 
conceivably happen in any sudden timeframe. In fact, the whole idea is just 
inconceivable.

Call me naive, but I would just speculate in RIPE. Maybe pick up some of 
those multiple /8s gathering dust? Save the creation of about 512 new dummy 
puppet corporations for /16s?

But wait, the evidence in RIPE, after dropping the needs-test, and the short 
experience in APNIC, when they dropped the needs-test, does not support your 
speculation speculation.

>From the ARIN staff review of 2014-14:
Exceptions to needs based review can be justified because the
smaller size of the blocs does not provide a significant vehicle
to 'game', 'hoard', or 'speculate' sizable IP resource blocks of size. Owen: 
Want to bet that there are not organizations out there that would be able to 
create enough entities to absorbe 4,000 /16s pretty quickly for the sake of 
attempting to flip them at a speculative profit?Mike: I would absolutely 
take your bet.Owen: Unfortunately, since this is a case where what would be 
bet is the best interests of the community, the stakes aren't mine to wager, 
nor are they yours.Mike: My bad?Regards,Mike
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com>
To: "Mike Burns" <mike at iptrading.com>
Cc: "Randy Carpenter" <rcarpen at network1.net>; "Steven Ryerse" 
<SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>; <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness



> On Dec 20, 2014, at 10:45 , Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
>
> It's utterly simple to create artificial entities, if necessary.
>
> There are only about 48,000 /16s en toto in all of the IPv4 unicast space. 
> In reality, when you consider the potential transfer market, it's more 
> likely on the order of 4,000.
>
> Want to bet that there are not organizations out there that would be able 
> to create enough entities to absorbe 4,000 /16s pretty quickly for the 
> sake of attempting to flip them at a speculative profit?
>
> I think it's a bad bet.
>
> Owen
>
>
> Hi Owen,
>
> That old chestnut again. So little faith in ARIN staff members to detect 
> what would have to be monumental levels of fraud before any market 
> manipulation could be achieved. ARIN legal staff has reviewed 2014-14, 
> remember, and found your argument lacking.

No, legal stated that there were no issues of liability for ARIN with the 
policy. The potential for fraud was not stated one way or another by the 
legal team in the staff and legal review.

> First, where do you go to find 4,000 /16s? Not that I am accepting that 
> number, I argue the potential transfer market as more like 12,000 /16 
> equivalents (before more widespread CGN could enlarge that number).

I figure there are about 12 /8s or so that are well known to be 
underutilized and that a proportional number of other blocks would account 
for another 4 or so /8s worth of space. Admittedly, like any quantity 
described at this point, it's mostly a SWAG, but I consider it a fairly 
educated SWAG. YMMV.

Where do you get 12,000?

> How do you negotiate quietly with the many, many sellers whom you would 
> have to spend a long time finding?

Why would you have to negotiate quietly?

> Or would you put an ad in the NY Times and hope it escaped the notice of 
> the ARIN community, even though I assume it would be community members 
> engaging in at least one side of these transactions?

Why would an ad in the NY Times have to escape the notice of the ARIN 
community?

Advertise that your organization would like to buy a /n (whatever size gets 
passed with 2014-14 if it gets adopted).

Then, as the calls come in, change your org name after each successful call. 
Nobody looking at the ad knows you're shopping for more than one. People who 
compare notes think they're dealing with different organizations. I'm not 
sure how you expect ARIN to put it together as the transfer requests come 
in.

> Do you think ARIN staff, a group that has processed a few hundred 
> transfers, would be able to even process those transactions in a timeframe 
> and manner invisible to policymakers?

It doesn't have to be invisible, it just has to look like a lot of different 
unrelated transfers.

> And what is the entity willing to engage in arguable fraud, who also has 
> the desire and finances to invest billions of dollars in an asset whose 
> value will decline with every new incentive to transition to IPv6?

You don't have to corner the market to manipulate it. You just need to 
change its visible nature a little and then watch the lemmings do what you 
encouraged them to do. Especially in a small market.

> Or instead of one or two nefarious actors, you assume there would be many 
> smaller fraudsters engaging in enough rampant speculation to impact the 
> market.

I see no reason to believe that there would not be some combination of 
actors across the spectrum. Under the proposed policy, they wouldn't even 
necessarily be nefarious or operating fraudulent. A bit deceitful, perhaps, 
but through omission rather than falsification if they played it right.

> And how many flippers are active in a market with falling prices and an 
> asset value of zero?

You continue to assume falling prices, but there's nothing to indicate any 
likelihood that will be the case for some time.

> And if they flip them to a person who needs them, and makes money in the 
> process, what, exactly is the evil?

The evil is driving up the price for the person who had need and should have 
been able to obtain them at the lower cost. I have no interest in turning 
the IPv4 community resource pool into a source of monetization for parasites 
who offer no value to the community in the process.

> Where is the evidence of anyone, anywhere, buying Ipv4 addresses with an 
> intent to profit through their resale?
> Unless you can provide some, why do we hold policy in thrall to the 
> bogeyman?

Since you are the one arguing for a change in policy, I believe the burden 
of proof rests with you to prove that the policy will not damage the 
interests of the community rather than placing the burden on me to prove 
that it will.

> I guess that's a long way of saying I would absolutely take your bet.

Unfortunately, since this is a case where what would be bet is the best 
interests of the community, the stakes aren't mine to wager, nor are they 
yours.

Owen



From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Sun Dec 21 21:01:06 2014
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 02:01:06 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <5497568B.1090206@rollernet.us>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net
	works.com>	<0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com><5B9E90747FA29
	74D91A54FCFA	1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><CAMfXtQwj_-=1
	rm5rSq0LD+VbD	2_mu9JWZEx2fyL5siTV-O4xmQ@mail.gmail.com><5B9E90747FA2974D91A
	54FCFA1B8AD120	16A52B38D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><535D0B74-4969-4FA3-
	B496-A4C4ECCC68	A8@delong.com><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54438E@E
	NI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>	<86h9wpu80h.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com><5B9E90
	747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A56976F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<5497568B.1090206@rollernet.us>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A56A0EB@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

Everyone in this Community has a self-serving agenda.  That is how it should be.  I won't apologize for mine and I won't ask you to apologize for yours.  

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: Sunday, December 21, 2014 6:24 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness

On 12/21/14 1:57 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> Well Rob, we would have both of our name servers on topologically distinct networks but ARIN denied our small IPv4 allocation request!  You proved my point that small Orgs have it tougher than larger ones getting resources.


No, small orgs do not have it tougher. An inability to grok the NRPM is maybe a personal difficulty, but not a barrier one that warrants policy change. I say this as someone who just got ARIN resources to start up an IX this September and other resources previously like a /22 for another org back when I had to have two /24's from upstreams (and an additional sometime later that was denied at first but accepted on the second try). 
I don't think orgs get any smaller or more difficult than trying to gather support to justify the launch of an IX in a region where such a thing is considered foreign concept, yet getting the resources from ARIN was the easiest step.

I see nothing in your arguments that would makes things easier for a small org, speaking as one myself that you claim would benefit. I cringe every time I see claims of "speaking for small orgs". Honestly, it comes off as a self serving agenda with a desire to harm the community to benefit one person. I have been denied in the past but what I didn't do was blow up at the community or develop a vendetta; it made me work to present a better justification for next time. Too bad if "work" is hard for a small org, suck it up or get a different job. If ARIN denied you however many times for resources I'm starting to think it deserved to be denied, but without an unbiased party making it available for the community to review we'll never know the truth.

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

From sethm at rollernet.us  Sun Dec 21 21:20:08 2014
From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 18:20:08 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A56A0EB@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net		works.com>	<0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com><5B9E90747FA29	74D91A54FCFA	1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><CAMfXtQwj_-=1	rm5rSq0LD+VbD	2_mu9JWZEx2fyL5siTV-O4xmQ@mail.gmail.com><5B9E90747FA2974D91A	54FCFA1B8AD120	16A52B38D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><535D0B74-4969-4FA3-	B496-A4C4ECCC68	A8@delong.com><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54438E@E	NI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>	<86h9wpu80h.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com><5B9E90	747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A56976F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<5497568B.1090206@rollernet.us>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A56A0EB@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <54977FD8.3090000@rollernet.us>

On 12/21/14 6:01 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> Everyone in this Community has a self-serving agenda.  That is how it should be.  I won't apologize for mine and I won't ask you to apologize for yours.


Why are you talking about apologies?

~Seth


From ppml at rs.seastrom.com  Mon Dec 22 06:12:31 2014
From: ppml at rs.seastrom.com (Rob Seastrom)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 06:12:31 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A56976F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	(Steven Ryerse's message of "Sun, 21 Dec 2014 21:57:51 +0000")
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net
	works.com> <0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA
	1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CAMfXtQwj_-=1rm5rSq0LD+VbD 2_mu9JWZEx2fyL5siTV-O4xmQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120
	16A52B38D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<535D0B74-4969-4FA3-B496-A4C4ECCC68 A8@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54438E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<86h9wpu80h.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A56976F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <86ioh46iqo.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>


Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> writes:

> Well Rob, we would have both of our name servers on topologically
> distinct networks but ARIN denied our small IPv4 allocation request!

Topologically distinct means not sharing facilities or upstreams.
Think off-site, on the other coast, or out-of-country, on networks not
run by you.  You are not kept from following these BCPs by
difficulties in your interface with ARIN.  It's a business decision
that it's too hard to do the right thing so you'll try and squeak by
with the absolute minimum.

> You proved my point that small Orgs have it tougher than larger ones
> getting resources.

Actually not, and I offered a specific counterexample to your
assertion that small organizations do not have the resources to
participate in the RIR or operator community, which you chose not to
quote.

-r



From mike at iptrading.com  Mon Dec 22 14:40:41 2014
From: mike at iptrading.com (Mike Burns)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 14:40:41 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <86ioh46iqo.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><CAMfXtQwj_-=1rm5rSq0LD+VbD
	2_mu9JWZEx2fyL5siTV-O4xmQ@mail.gmail.com><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B38D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><535D0B74-4969-4FA3-B496-A4C4ECCC68
	A8@delong.com><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54438E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><86h9wpu80h.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A56976F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<86ioh46iqo.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>
Message-ID: <93266B2863354C99B62284E362EFC0DE@MPC>

I'm uncomfortable with what Mr. Seastrom did there, choosing the example he 
did.
As a community we strive to be inclusive, and one way to stifle conversation 
is to go ad hominem, even if obliquely.
I hope we don't see more of that kind of thing on this list, nor language 
about trolls or whatnot.

Regards,
Mike


-----Original Message----- 
From: Rob Seastrom
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 6:12 AM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness


Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> writes:

> Well Rob, we would have both of our name servers on topologically
> distinct networks but ARIN denied our small IPv4 allocation request!

Topologically distinct means not sharing facilities or upstreams.
Think off-site, on the other coast, or out-of-country, on networks not
run by you.  You are not kept from following these BCPs by
difficulties in your interface with ARIN.  It's a business decision
that it's too hard to do the right thing so you'll try and squeak by
with the absolute minimum.

> You proved my point that small Orgs have it tougher than larger ones
> getting resources.

Actually not, and I offered a specific counterexample to your
assertion that small organizations do not have the resources to
participate in the RIR or operator community, which you chose not to
quote.

-r

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



From owen at delong.com  Mon Dec 22 14:53:12 2014
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 11:53:12 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <4DF7CE172AA14C41BDEBFDC4BE3B7AAC@ncsscfoipoxes4>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<20141218165833.GC33386@mx1.yitter.info>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<103763982.584088.1419040928589.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net>
	<4E5FF3381B4D46909D299AB5F6C9136F@ncsscfoipoxes4>
	<8A10AA42-1C94-4B2E-BE16-5987C1EC6A6A@delong.com>
	<710FF9D42CA64346891E1E7E7711DF05@ncsscfoipoxes4>
	<4A0CBBC3-2441-40BE-9B61-C29760331477@delong.com>
	<4DF7CE172AA14C41BDEBFDC4BE3B7AAC@ncsscfoipoxes4>
Message-ID: <D28F078A-CD24-402C-BD5D-B9D63284CD03@delong.com>


> On Dec 21, 2014, at 15:48 , Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Owen,
> 
> 2014-14 calls for a /16 limit.
> You expect some organization to advertise they will buy a /16, and then just change names and prosecute a series of transactions, each requiring a new ORG-ID. You know, there are a growing group of people who are striving every day to advertise the same thing. Brokers like me. We have to balance the advertising costs with the deal profits. There is no secret place where you can place an ad and magically find enough /16 sellers to change this market. And have sellers be serially faked into believing they are talking to separately spun-up organizations. And these organizations, though legally separate, are shells which are to collude under the control of some existing entity with billions of dollars to spend? An entity who is not afraid of driving us faster towards IPv6 and a zero value to IPv4? I deal with ARIN quite a bit, and I don't for one minute believe that they could start seeing ORG-IDS spun up, and then each receiving a needs-free transfer, repeated thousands of times, and fail to notice it. Nor do I believe it could conceivably happen in any sudden timeframe. In fact, the whole idea is just inconceivable.
> 
> Call me naive, but I would just speculate in RIPE. Maybe pick up some of those multiple /8s gathering dust? Save the creation of about 512 new dummy puppet corporations for /16s?

There aren't that many /8s in RIPE to pick up. The vast majority of /8s that were issued as /8s are under ARIN management, so that simply doesn't hold water.

> But wait, the evidence in RIPE, after dropping the needs-test, and the short experience in APNIC, when they dropped the needs-test, does not support your speculation speculation.

There's a lot less underutilized space available for speculation in the RIPE region (and APNIC for that matter), so perhaps that's one reason to believe that things might be different between the regions.

Owen




From mueller at syr.edu  Mon Dec 22 14:57:22 2014
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 19:57:22 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness blah blah
Message-ID: <b5cc413325bd4eb988a9cb5a310d0c08@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>

Please. Will all the amateur economists announcing that markets don't work for finite resources take a look at 

a) radio spectrum auctions
b) land/real estate markets
c) ipv4 numbers in RIPE region, where needs tests for transfers were basically abolished
d) stock markets (there are a fixed number of shares for most companies)
e) ....about 150 other examples one could provide if one wanted to waste further time

we've had this debate over and over again, for the past 6 years. It's boring and mostly useless. 
Nearly all ISPs outside of North Korea exist in a market economy. Ipv4 number markets are here. They are not going away unless scarcity goes away.

Useful discussions of this topic focus will on a particular policy proposal (e.g., 2014-14), will base their arguments for or against particular provisions of a policy on sound techno-economic analysis and not on opinions regarding "fairness" or "capitalism," and will take account of real things happening in the real world (such as ipv4 number block leases, RIPE policies, etc.). 

Rant over. :-)

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
> On Behalf Of Frank Bulk
> Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 9:38 AM
> To: 'Adam Thompson'; Randy Carpenter; ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
> 
> For those of us in the "NAT is bad"
> (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v26BAlfWBm8) camp, the risk I
> perceive with a purely capitalistic model is that many organizations will sell
> their IPv4 address space to the highest bidder (who may hoard it) and even
> more NAT will be deployed.  While the effects of CGN are documented (i.e.
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7021), I think that many network operators will
> (choose to) ignore those (to the detriment of their end users) or capitalize on
> that by charging extra to those who don't want to go through CGN.  In
> reaction, applications and services will be further modified to address CGN,
> the opposite of my preferred approach towards end-to-end communication.
> 
> Frank
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
> On Behalf Of Adam Thompson
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 9:43 PM
> To: Randy Carpenter; ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
> 
> On 14-12-19 08:02 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
> > A capitalistic model does not work for a finite resource like IP
> addresses.
> I'm not even a Smithian capitalist, and I see the first problem here:
> 
> Why doesn't it work?
> 
> Market stability will be reached according to every economic theory I've read,
> regardless of whether the resources are finite or not. It may be that stability
> means a gradually-increasing price for a while followed by rapid inflation, but
> estimates I've heard posit that IPv6 deployment will be widespread by the
> time the market price would otherwise skyrocket.
> 
> > All that would happen is that a large company could just buy up all of
> > the
> space, and then set its own price for everyone else.
> Really?  How many universities and large organizations have /8s, /9s, and
> /10s, that they would almost immediately start the process of monetizing?
> It's "easy" (*cough*) - switch to NAT'd private addresses, switch to IPv6,
> whatever.  Heck, simple disaggregation of large blocks would release tons of
> /16 and longer prefixes based on the usage patterns I've seen at most large
> organizations.  ISPs are not generally included in this, they tend to use what
> they have. IBM, HP/Compaq/DEC, MIT, Princeton, Harvard, etc., etc.,
> however, are the poster children for low usage.  They just don't have a big
> enough incentive to worry about it yet.
> 
> Also, see my previous posts for references to academic treatment of the fact
> that hoarding *isn't a bad thing* in the free market.  Of course, this isn't a
> free market yet, so there's an argument to be made there...
> 
> > How's that for "fairness" ?? I don't see how you can argue for
> > treating
> smaller orgs more fairly by proposing to allow large companies to set
> whatever ridiculous price they want.
> The playing field is then level - all new entrants get to simply pay the going
> rate, with no (perceived?) favouritism towards incumbents or large entrants.
> This assumes there's a reasonable relationship between the price of a /16
> and the price of a /24, of course. Smith's "invisible hand" should, in theory,
> assure this...
> 
> > I still don't get the needs argument at all. If an org can't show that
> > it
> needs the addresses, then why do they need the addresses?
> Why should I have to disclose to a third party exactly what my plans are?
> Even the IRS (or CRA, here) doesn't need that level of detail.
> I'm sure the NSA knows exactly what my plans are, but if I have deep enough
> pockets, I don't see why this resource - almost alone among all common
> resources both natural and artificial - should be forbidden to me.
> 
> The only other example I can think of that is widely-known is New York (and
> elsewhere) Taxicab licenses... and almost everyone except taxicab license
> owners thinks that system is, shall we say, suboptimal.
> 
> 
> 
> All of the points above here are posited on the fact that the US is, at least
> supposedly, a Smithian capitalist society that embraces the free market.
> I happen to think capitalism is fundamentally broken, but at the same time
> I'd rather let the market control what I can and can't do rather than a
> handful of regulators who I *know* don't have my interests at heart.  (Nor is
> that their mandate, I don't mean they're behaving
> maliciously!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In essence, above is theory, below is practical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moving on to problems in the areas of policy, bias, and technical:
> > I agree that in the past it was difficult for small non-multihomed
> > orgs to
> get space. But now that the minimum is a /24, it is so ridiculously easy.
> Does multihoming, per se, meet the (v4) needs test after the policy changes
> in 2014?  If yes, I can live with the situation.  If no, then small entities are still
> getting screwed.
> As a small-to-medium-sized enterprise, I probably NAT my entire company
> behind one or two (possibly not even contiguous) IP addresses, with maybe
> another half dozen publicly-visible servers. But if I want to be multi-homed, I
> must first use >64 public IPs, and come up with a reason to use >128 public
> IPs within a year. What if I just need those 6 or 7 IPs to be highly available?
> 
> Under the current NRPM, the only apparent way a small org can multi-home
> (v4) is to get a reassignment from an ISP, at which point they're stuck with
> that ISP pretty much forever, barring a painful and expensive renumbering
> process (say, ~1000 incoming static VPN tunnels, not all of which are under
> their direct control?).
> 
> (I also note that the multihoming justification for IPv6 direct assignment is
> still there, even as the IPv4 justification is gone.)
> 
> This is the primary example today of how the NRPM is heavily biased
> towards large organizations and SPs in the end-stages of IPv4 runout.
> Meanwhile, if there were no needs test for /24s, and a healthy transfer
> market, the organization would have the *choice* of paying for PI space or
> choosing alternate workarounds with higher TCO (e.g. DNS-based load-
> balancing, manual load-balancing, etc.). Right now, the small organization
> that doesn't wish to become a sharecropper for their incumbent SP is - as far
> as I can tell from reading the NRPM tonight - S.O.L.
> 
> The fact they can still get a direct IPv6 allocation is meaningless until IPv6
> deployment reaches some reasonable density of penetration (>40%,
> roughly), and I don't hear anyone here claiming that will happen until we
> actually run out of IPv4 space, and SPs are no longer able to acquire v4 space
> on demand.  Small organizations already can't acquire
> v4 space on demand - but they don't carry much weight with SPs.
> 
> Yes, the reasoning here is *partially* circular, because there are two related
> problems converging to screw the small organization (which group includes
> most of my customers, and in fact, most businesses in Canada).
> 
> Another way to view this, which has some relevancy to the problem
> (mentioned earlier today) with separation between ARIN and NANOG, unlike
> APNIC and RIPE which largely combine those functions, is that this wouldn't
> be an issue if global routing tables carried prefixes longer than /24.  The main
> reason that's the case today - as far as I can tell
> - is TCAM space on hardware routers, which directly translates into: Money.
> 
> [Rant about certain short-sighted & self-centered ISPs removed, didn't add
> any value to the discussion, no matter how much it made me feel better.]
> 
> Right now we have this mixture of regulatory oversight and "market"
> forces that indirectly control said regulatory oversight... this isn't IMHO a
> healthy model, and any steps we can take to move either to a pure
> regulatory function *or* a pure market-driven regime should improve the
> situation.  Given that ARIN is located in the U.S., a pure market-driven regime
> seems like a better idea right now.
> 
> Regardless, small organizations are - right now - impossibly disadvantaged if
> they want PI space for any reason, especially multi-homing.
> 
> 
> If I've misread the NRPM v2014.4 (2014-Sep-17), feel free to correct my
> interpretation... the only provision for low-usage multihoming of IPv4 I
> could find is 4.2.3.6, which is commercially punitive, at least in my
> region.
> 
> --
> -Adam Thompson
>   athompso at athompso.net
>   Cell: +1 204 291-7950
>   Fax: +1 204 489-6515
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage 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 ppml at rs.seastrom.com  Mon Dec 22 15:17:41 2014
From: ppml at rs.seastrom.com (Rob Seastrom)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 15:17:41 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <93266B2863354C99B62284E362EFC0DE@MPC> (Mike Burns's message of
	"Mon, 22 Dec 2014 14:40:41 -0500")
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CAMfXtQwj_-=1rm5rSq0LD+VbD 2_mu9JWZEx2fyL5siTV-O4xmQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B38D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<535D0B74-4969-4FA3-B496-A4C4ECCC68 A8@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54438E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<86h9wpu80h.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A56976F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<86ioh46iqo.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>
	<93266B2863354C99B62284E362EFC0DE@MPC>
Message-ID: <86lhlz30d6.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>


"Mike Burns" <mike at iptrading.com> writes:

> I'm uncomfortable with what Mr. Seastrom did there, choosing the
> example he did.
> As a community we strive to be inclusive, and one way to stifle
> conversation is to go ad hominem, even if obliquely.

The irony of being called out personally and accused of making an
ad-hominem attack for pointing out that someone's own organization is
not following a well-known BCP (for presumably valid and calculated
business reasons) is not lost on me.

> I hope we don't see more of that kind of thing on this list, nor
> language about trolls or whatnot.

Nor gratuitous red herrings insinuating that people have used language
that they never have.  Does that work for you?

-r

>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Rob Seastrom
> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 6:12 AM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>
>
> Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> writes:
>
>> Well Rob, we would have both of our name servers on topologically
>> distinct networks but ARIN denied our small IPv4 allocation request!
>
> Topologically distinct means not sharing facilities or upstreams.
> Think off-site, on the other coast, or out-of-country, on networks not
> run by you.  You are not kept from following these BCPs by
> difficulties in your interface with ARIN.  It's a business decision
> that it's too hard to do the right thing so you'll try and squeak by
> with the absolute minimum.
>
>> You proved my point that small Orgs have it tougher than larger ones
>> getting resources.
>
> Actually not, and I offered a specific counterexample to your
> assertion that small organizations do not have the resources to
> participate in the RIR or operator community, which you chose not to
> quote.
>
> -r
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


From mike at iptrading.com  Mon Dec 22 15:28:06 2014
From: mike at iptrading.com (Mike Burns)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 15:28:06 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <86lhlz30d6.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><CAMfXtQwj_-=1rm5rSq0LD+VbD
	2_mu9JWZEx2fyL5siTV-O4xmQ@mail.gmail.com><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B38D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><535D0B74-4969-4FA3-B496-A4C4ECCC68
	A8@delong.com><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54438E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><86h9wpu80h.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A56976F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><86ioh46iqo.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com><93266B2863354C99B62284E362EFC0DE@MPC>
	<86lhlz30d6.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>
Message-ID: <E99A9BC0BEF7494EBBA7504397F17B20@MPC>

Hi Rob,

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that it was you who used the word troll or 
other objectionable words.

But by pointing out what you did on a public list, you crossed the line IMO.
If you think I crossed a line calling you out, so be it, I've expressed 
myself completely on the issue.

Regards,
Mike







-----Original Message----- 
From: Rob Seastrom
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 3:17 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: Steven Ryerse ; Rob Seastrom ; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness


"Mike Burns" <mike at iptrading.com> writes:

> I'm uncomfortable with what Mr. Seastrom did there, choosing the
> example he did.
> As a community we strive to be inclusive, and one way to stifle
> conversation is to go ad hominem, even if obliquely.

The irony of being called out personally and accused of making an
ad-hominem attack for pointing out that someone's own organization is
not following a well-known BCP (for presumably valid and calculated
business reasons) is not lost on me.

> I hope we don't see more of that kind of thing on this list, nor
> language about trolls or whatnot.

Nor gratuitous red herrings insinuating that people have used language
that they never have.  Does that work for you?

-r

>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Rob Seastrom
> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 6:12 AM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>
>
> Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> writes:
>
>> Well Rob, we would have both of our name servers on topologically
>> distinct networks but ARIN denied our small IPv4 allocation request!
>
> Topologically distinct means not sharing facilities or upstreams.
> Think off-site, on the other coast, or out-of-country, on networks not
> run by you.  You are not kept from following these BCPs by
> difficulties in your interface with ARIN.  It's a business decision
> that it's too hard to do the right thing so you'll try and squeak by
> with the absolute minimum.
>
>> You proved my point that small Orgs have it tougher than larger ones
>> getting resources.
>
> Actually not, and I offered a specific counterexample to your
> assertion that small organizations do not have the resources to
> participate in the RIR or operator community, which you chose not to
> quote.
>
> -r
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage 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  Mon Dec 22 15:32:08 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 20:32:08 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
Message-ID: <BAFD110B-6042-4CF1-BB53-A8EF8541307F@corp.arin.net>

Folks -

  We have a large number of draft policies currently underway
  (see https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/ for details)

  Perhaps we could have some discussion (on the PPML Mailing
  List) of merits of these, and/or suggestions for improving the policy
  text where appropriate?

Thanks! (and Happy Holidays! :-)
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141222/012e8a24/attachment.htm>

From farmer at umn.edu  Mon Dec 22 15:51:59 2014
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 14:51:59 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness blah blah
In-Reply-To: <b5cc413325bd4eb988a9cb5a310d0c08@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <b5cc413325bd4eb988a9cb5a310d0c08@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <5498846F.8030301@umn.edu>


On 12/22/14, 13:57 , Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Please. Will all the amateur economists announcing that markets don't work for finite resources take a look at
>
> a) radio spectrum auctions
> b) land/real estate markets
> c) ipv4 numbers in RIPE region, where needs tests for transfers were basically abolished
> d) stock markets (there are a fixed number of shares for most companies)
> e) ....about 150 other examples one could provide if one wanted to waste further time
>
> we've had this debate over and over again, for the past 6 years. It's boring and mostly useless.
> Nearly all ISPs outside of North Korea exist in a market economy. Ipv4 number markets are here. They are not going away unless scarcity goes away.
>
> Useful discussions of this topic focus will on a particular policy proposal (e.g., 2014-14), will base their arguments for or against particular provisions of a policy on sound techno-economic analysis and not on opinions regarding "fairness" or "capitalism," and will take account of real things happening in the real world (such as ipv4 number block leases, RIPE policies, etc.).
>
> Rant over. :-)
>
> --MM
>

Thank you Milton.

While I may not totally agree with your analysis, I completely agree 
with your sentiment.  Many of us are tired of the same arguments begin 
rehashed over and over and over again.

You and several others have noted that RIPE has removed needs basis from 
its policies.  However, I would like to additionally note that RIPE did 
not even seriously begin that debate until after the RIPE free pool was 
essentially exhausted and RIPE had entered its last /8 policy.

I suspect that ARIN's consensus will similarly evolve quickly following 
ARIN's free pool exhaustion as well, something like 3 to 6 months 
following free pool exhaustion, I'll bet.

So my plea is, "DON'T PANIC", everyone please have the patience and 
dignity to let things take their coarse.  The ARIN free pool is not long 
for this world, start saying your goodbyes, and begin your grieving 
process now.  Just like the death of an old friend, its going to take us 
a little time to get use to the world without our old friend (the ARIN 
free pool) in it.

Thanks

-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================


From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Mon Dec 22 16:15:47 2014
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 21:15:47 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness blah blah
In-Reply-To: <5498846F.8030301@umn.edu>
References: <b5cc413325bd4eb988a9cb5a310d0c08@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<5498846F.8030301@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A57755E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

It's almost gone now 6 to 12 months tops until runout unless some significant event occurs.  As it will take six months probably to make a major change to the affected policies.  Why not start now?  

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

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

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Farmer
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 3:52 PM
To: Milton L Mueller; ARIN-PPML at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness blah blah


On 12/22/14, 13:57 , Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Please. Will all the amateur economists announcing that markets don't 
> work for finite resources take a look at
>
> a) radio spectrum auctions
> b) land/real estate markets
> c) ipv4 numbers in RIPE region, where needs tests for transfers were 
> basically abolished
> d) stock markets (there are a fixed number of shares for most 
> companies)
> e) ....about 150 other examples one could provide if one wanted to 
> waste further time
>
> we've had this debate over and over again, for the past 6 years. It's boring and mostly useless.
> Nearly all ISPs outside of North Korea exist in a market economy. Ipv4 number markets are here. They are not going away unless scarcity goes away.
>
> Useful discussions of this topic focus will on a particular policy proposal (e.g., 2014-14), will base their arguments for or against particular provisions of a policy on sound techno-economic analysis and not on opinions regarding "fairness" or "capitalism," and will take account of real things happening in the real world (such as ipv4 number block leases, RIPE policies, etc.).
>
> Rant over. :-)
>
> --MM
>

Thank you Milton.

While I may not totally agree with your analysis, I completely agree with your sentiment.  Many of us are tired of the same arguments begin rehashed over and over and over again.

You and several others have noted that RIPE has removed needs basis from its policies.  However, I would like to additionally note that RIPE did not even seriously begin that debate until after the RIPE free pool was essentially exhausted and RIPE had entered its last /8 policy.

I suspect that ARIN's consensus will similarly evolve quickly following ARIN's free pool exhaustion as well, something like 3 to 6 months following free pool exhaustion, I'll bet.

So my plea is, "DON'T PANIC", everyone please have the patience and dignity to let things take their coarse.  The ARIN free pool is not long for this world, start saying your goodbyes, and begin your grieving process now.  Just like the death of an old friend, its going to take us a little time to get use to the world without our old friend (the ARIN free pool) in it.

Thanks

--
================================================
David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

From owen at delong.com  Mon Dec 22 16:15:01 2014
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 13:15:01 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness blah blah
In-Reply-To: <b5cc413325bd4eb988a9cb5a310d0c08@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <b5cc413325bd4eb988a9cb5a310d0c08@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <EEBC2046-94C6-44B3-A14C-9D1612D00BFB@delong.com>


> On Dec 22, 2014, at 11:57 , Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> 
> Please. Will all the amateur economists announcing that markets don't work for finite resources take a look at 
> 
> a) radio spectrum auctions

Yes, this is an excellent proof of the dysfunction of markets for finite resources! Thank you for pointing that out.
Also, this market is highly (albeit often poorly) regulated.

> b) land/real estate markets

Indeed, the foreclosure crisis and the predatory lending practices make good arguments here as well.
Significantly regulated, but many of the problems stem from lack of regulation and poor choices in regulations.

> c) ipv4 numbers in RIPE region, where needs tests for transfers were basically abolished

Insufficient time elapsed since that policy change and limited transparency make this a difficult case for evaluation and of dubious value.

> d) stock markets (there are a fixed number of shares for most companies)

But shares are fungible for the most part, and HFT makes a good argument that there is significant dysfunction here as well.
Poorly regulated due to ineffectual enforcement coupled with regulations that have not kept pace with technology and other industry changes, such as HFT.

> e) ....about 150 other examples one could provide if one wanted to waste further time

Such as the tulip mania of the 1600s?

> we've had this debate over and over again, for the past 6 years. It's boring and mostly useless. 

And yet you engage every single time.

> Nearly all ISPs outside of North Korea exist in a market economy. Ipv4 number markets are here. They are not going away unless scarcity goes away.

True. I don't think anyone is arguing to eliminate the market. Some of us are arguing that a well regulated market is a better choice than an unregulated market. You are (usually) arguing the opposite, that we should remove all regulation from the market. So much so that you seem to mistake efforts to preserve market regulation as an effort to eliminate the market.

> Useful discussions of this topic focus will on a particular policy proposal (e.g., 2014-14), will base their arguments for or against particular provisions of a policy on sound techno-economic analysis and not on opinions regarding "fairness" or "capitalism," and will take account of real things happening in the real world (such as ipv4 number block leases, RIPE policies, etc.). 

I'll make most of my comments on this paragraph off-list as they are not of general interest to the community.

Since Fairness _IS_ one of the underlying requirements for us to adopt a policy, I think that opinions regarding fairness are quite important to our discussions and deliberations. Like it or not, people's sense of fairness is central to their decision making. Research has shown time and time again that people who believe they were treated unfairly will act even to their own detriment in order to disadvantage those that wronged them. This is human nature and our community is made up of humans.

Owen




From tedm at ipinc.net  Mon Dec 22 17:15:33 2014
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 14:15:33 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <86h9wpu80h.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net
	works.com> <0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974
	D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CAMfXtQwj_-=1rm5rSq0LD+VbD2_mu9JWZEx2fyL5siTV-O4xmQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B38D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<535D0B74-4969-4FA3-B496-A4C4ECCC68A8@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54438E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<86h9wpu80h.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>
Message-ID: <54989805.6080906@ipinc.net>

Another "Freewill" by Rush fan, I see.... ;-)  Your dating yourself...

An IP address adjacency is no guarantee anymore that the devices are in 
the same room.

I can put 198.199.199.191 in Chicago and purchase a layer 2 circuit to 
Denver and put 198.199.199.192 on that.

Please don't perpetuate the myth that adjacent IP's are always in the 
same geographical region.  There's enough wanna be Sorcerers Apprentices 
out there cobbling together PHP websites that claim to "analyze" your 
nameservers who don't know their piehole from their otherhole.

Ted

On 12/20/2014 5:05 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
>
> Steven Ryerse<SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>  writes:
>
>> But you ignore the reality of life in a small Org that has limited
>> resources.  They are spending all their time just trying to keep
>> their doors open and don't have the extra time to participate even
>> if they want to.
>
> Having worked at tiny organizations for the majority of the time I
> served on the ARIN AC as well as NANOG committees and board, this
> argument rings hollow.
>
> At the end of the day, it's a matter of priorities.  Prudence would
> dictate that one participate in governance and standards bodies if
> they are doing stuff that directly affects one's business.  Prudence
> also dictates that one follow BCPs regarding putting nameservers for
> one's zone on topologically distinct networks.
>
>     merlot:~ rs$ dig eclipse-networks.com. ns | grep -w A
>     ns1.eclipseinternet.com. 172800           IN A 198.199.199.191
>     ns2.eclipseinternet.com. 172800           IN A 198.199.199.192
>     merlot:~ rs$
>
> In both cases, people sometimes prioritize differently, and they often
> get away with it.  There may even be valid business reasons for doing
> so (cost outweighs benefit for instance).
>
> But if you choose to not participate, you've still made a choice.
>
> -r
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage 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  Mon Dec 22 17:27:01 2014
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 14:27:01 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A5671BF@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net
	works.com><0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com><5B9E90747FA297
	4
	D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><20141218165833.G
	C33386@mx1.yitter.info><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAI
	L.eclipse-networks.com> <549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<54953C9D.1050303@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A5671BF@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <54989AB5.2070504@ipinc.net>


Didn't your mommy ever teach you that just because Europe does something 
doesn't mean you need to do it also?

You cannot have it both ways.  ARIN exists as a regulatory body.  If 
it's usefulness as a regulatory body is over then call for it's 
dissolution.  Otherwise, it's going to do what it's supposed to do which 
is to prevent the IP number space from becoming hopelessly fragmented 
and router slots from ballooning.

Europe can get away with ripe-604 precisely because a) it has no Legacy 
IPv4 and b) a lot of it has switched over to IPv6 already.  Plus there 
is a lot more regulation of NETWORKS in Europe.  Are you forgetting RIPE 
assigns IP addressing to Russia?  Are you going to argue that's now a 
free democracy with an open market now?  That just happens to have had 
the same dictat...I mean "president" for the last generation?  Please, 
stop before you embarrass yourself.

I would support a call for no needs testing on IPv6 allocations.  Of 
course once obtained then it would be the end users problem to get their 
upstream to route it.  But if more end users obtained IPv6 then it would 
increase the push on the retail networks (Frontier, RoadRunner, SBC 
CenturyLink) to have their support folks at least learn about what it is!!!

But for IPv4?  I see no reason to turn it into a free for all.

Ted

On 12/21/2014 11:41 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> When the government meddles and plays favorites then capitalism stops
> working.  At the low end of allocation policy it needs to be
> capitalistic and all we need is the equivalent of the Anti-Trust laws
> in policy to keep the big guys in check.  2014-14 moves in this
> direction.  We certainly don't need Anti-Trust equivalent policies on
> the low end of allocations.
>
> Some folks here respond to me as if I'm a heretic and my input is
> radical and if implemented the world would somehow end.  I disagree.
> I have recently been advocating removing needs test just from the
> ARIN Minimum block size allocation and my proposed 2014-18 would have
> done that.  A proposal to do a whole lot more than I have proposed -
> not only has been proposed in the RIPE region - but tweaked,
> improved, and passed - as ripe-604.  Are the folks who proposed and
> voted to pass ripe-604 heretics too?  I think not.  I think they
> realized that needs testing couldn't save IPv4 and wanted to level
> the playing field so they passed ripe-604. The world has not ended in
> Europe because of it.
>
> I think we need an ARIN equivalent of ripe-604 but I figured that I
> would start at the low end where I think small Orgs would benefit
> just trying to remove the needs testing for Orgs who just need the
> minimum and don't need a minimum block more than once per year.  This
> would be a pretty small change to current policy and if advocating
> for that makes me a heretic then so be it!  My two cents.
>
> 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: Ted Mittelstaedt
> [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net] Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 4:09 AM To:
> Steven Ryerse Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml]
> Internet Fairness
>
>
> Your not talking about a Capitalistic model your talking about a
> Laissez-faire model.  While this might make some Libertarians have
> wet dreams it is a recipe for anarchy which is why no economy on
> Earth operates this way.
>
> What is generally understood about Capitalism today is that the
> catch-22 of Capitalism is that if you have a market that is
> completely controlled by the government, that is the opposite of
> Capitalism - but if you have a market that has zero government
> controls it immediately devolves into a set of monopolies which are
> also the opposite of Capitalism.
>
> In short, the cost of real economic freedom is constant government
> tinkering.
>
> I realize it's difficult to understand for a lot of people.  The Tea
> Party in the United States is filled with people who don't understand
> it.
>
> ARIN resource allocations are as close to Capitalism today as we are
> going to get.  Once the transfer market was approved, that ended the
> last vestige of authoritarian control by ARIN.
>
> The needs testing is far less intrusive than government controls on
> automobiles, yet nobody would argue today the US does not have
> competition in the automobile market.
>
> Ted
>
> On 12/19/2014 3:59 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>> I'm not being ignorant I am trying to get to bottom of the
>> discussion.  I wish ARINs resources were issued by ARIN in a
>> capitalistic manner.  Then as long as an Org is willing to pay the
>> going rate resources could be acquired guaranteed as long as there
>> are sellers.  There is no needs testing in that model just supply
>> and demand and the ability to pay.  How do we change to the
>> Capitalistic model from what we got now?
>>
>> 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 Ted Mittelstaedt
>> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 11:23 AM To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>>
>> First point here Steven is you have completely ignored and failed
>> to respond to my first comment regarding why ARIN is the way it is
>> - because it exists in a capitalistic society - because you have no
>> answer for that.
>>
>> I do not really believe for a second that you really want an honest
>> debate on this issue.  What you are doing is sitting back and
>> cherry picking weak arguments to respond to, and ignoring strong
>> ones.  So I am not going to waste much more time with you on this.
>>
>> But I will say that your comment:
>>
>> " If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that really make
>> it OK to start denying small Orgs .com domain name requests?"
>>
>> is one of the most ignorant I've seen on this list in quite a
>> while.
>>
>> The DNS system exists to make IP addresses that are hard to
>> remember, replaced by domain names that are easy to remember.  The
>> average English speaking adult knows about 50,000 English words.
>> There's over 100 million .com domain names registered at this
>> point.  We have far and away exceeded the number of English .com
>> one word domain names that an average person would know.
>>
>> Therefore we have long ago "run out" of .com domain names.  Oh
>> sure, you can still register new .com domain names that are
>> nonsense like fdgcjghhgeafvrar.com or you can make up elaborate
>> long sentences like thisismynewdomainanemisntitkewel.com and
>> register those names, but neither of those meets the bar of being
>> an easy to remember name.  They are, in fact, harder to remember
>> than the IP addresses that they are supposed to make "easy to
>> remember"
>>
>> There
>>
>> On 12/18/2014 9:15 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>> Thanks for your comments!  Actually the total number of possible
>>> .com permutations is limited too.  IPv4 addresses and .com domain
>>> names are both just Internet resources that Internet users need
>>> to use the Internet.  Obviously there are less IPv4 addresses
>>> than .com combinations, but IPv4 is still the only way to access
>>> most of the Internet.  While ARIN has resources to allocate - I'm
>>> absolutely fine limiting the size of an allocation to match the
>>> size of an Org and their network, but I'm not fine with denying
>>> an Org any resources.
>>>
>>> Also IPv4 cannot somehow be saved by conservation.  Regardless of
>>> any policy, ARIN will run out of IPv4 probably within the next
>>> year.  If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that
>>> really make it OK to start denying small Orgs .com domain name
>>> requests?
>>>
>>> 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 Andrew Sullivan
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:59 AM To:
>>> arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 04:35:41PM +0000, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If it is not OK to deny the Minimum domain (available) name to
>>>> an Org, then it isn?t OK to deny an Org the Minimum  IP
>>>> allocation.  They are both Internet resources.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The analogy seems faulty to me.  The number space is finite (and
>>> in the case of v4, not very large).  The name space in any given
>>> registry is admittedly not infinite, since (1) it's limited to
>>> labels 63 octets long from the LDH repertoire and (2) useful
>>> mnemonics are generally shorter than 63 octets and usually a
>>> wordlike thing in some natural language.  There are, however,
>>> lots of registries (more all the time! Thanks, ICANN!); and last
>>> I checked neither info nor biz was anything close to the size (or
>>> utility) of com, even though they've both been around since 2001
>>> and have rather similar registration rules.  So, there is an
>>> argument in favour of tight rules for allocation of v4 numbers
>>> that is not available in the name case.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> A
>>>
>>> -- Andrew Sullivan ajs at anvilwalrusden.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.
>>> _______________________________________________ PPML You are
>>> receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
>>> Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or
>>> manage 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 tedm at ipinc.net  Mon Dec 22 17:42:14 2014
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 14:42:14 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness blah blah
In-Reply-To: <b5cc413325bd4eb988a9cb5a310d0c08@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <b5cc413325bd4eb988a9cb5a310d0c08@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <54989E46.1060103@ipinc.net>

Milton,

"Ipv4 number markets are here. They are not going away unless scarcity 
goes away"

IPv4 scarcity is going to go away.  It's coming a lot faster than most 
people think.  IPv6 is being rammed down a lot of people's throat who 
don't realize it.

You buy a shiny new Comcast Xfinity circuit today - you get dual 
stacking on the modem, and you get a live IPv6 address assigned to your 
Windows 7 or later systems plugged into that cable modem.  No 
firewalling, NAT only on the IPv4 stack.

And 99% of the customers simply don't realize it's happening.

Ted

On 12/22/2014 11:57 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Please. Will all the amateur economists announcing that markets don't work for finite resources take a look at
>
> a) radio spectrum auctions
> b) land/real estate markets
> c) ipv4 numbers in RIPE region, where needs tests for transfers were basically abolished
> d) stock markets (there are a fixed number of shares for most companies)
> e) ....about 150 other examples one could provide if one wanted to waste further time
>
> we've had this debate over and over again, for the past 6 years. It's boring and mostly useless.
> Nearly all ISPs outside of North Korea exist in a market economy. Ipv4 number markets are here. They are not going away unless scarcity goes away.
>
> Useful discussions of this topic focus will on a particular policy proposal (e.g., 2014-14), will base their arguments for or against particular provisions of a policy on sound techno-economic analysis and not on opinions regarding "fairness" or "capitalism," and will take account of real things happening in the real world (such as ipv4 number block leases, RIPE policies, etc.).
>
> Rant over. :-)
>
> --MM
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
>> On Behalf Of Frank Bulk
>> Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 9:38 AM
>> To: 'Adam Thompson'; Randy Carpenter; ARIN-PPML at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>>
>> For those of us in the "NAT is bad"
>> (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v26BAlfWBm8) camp, the risk I
>> perceive with a purely capitalistic model is that many organizations will sell
>> their IPv4 address space to the highest bidder (who may hoard it) and even
>> more NAT will be deployed.  While the effects of CGN are documented (i.e.
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7021), I think that many network operators will
>> (choose to) ignore those (to the detriment of their end users) or capitalize on
>> that by charging extra to those who don't want to go through CGN.  In
>> reaction, applications and services will be further modified to address CGN,
>> the opposite of my preferred approach towards end-to-end communication.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
>> On Behalf Of Adam Thompson
>> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 9:43 PM
>> To: Randy Carpenter; ARIN-PPML at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>>
>> On 14-12-19 08:02 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
>>> A capitalistic model does not work for a finite resource like IP
>> addresses.
>> I'm not even a Smithian capitalist, and I see the first problem here:
>>
>> Why doesn't it work?
>>
>> Market stability will be reached according to every economic theory I've read,
>> regardless of whether the resources are finite or not. It may be that stability
>> means a gradually-increasing price for a while followed by rapid inflation, but
>> estimates I've heard posit that IPv6 deployment will be widespread by the
>> time the market price would otherwise skyrocket.
>>
>>> All that would happen is that a large company could just buy up all of
>>> the
>> space, and then set its own price for everyone else.
>> Really?  How many universities and large organizations have /8s, /9s, and
>> /10s, that they would almost immediately start the process of monetizing?
>> It's "easy" (*cough*) - switch to NAT'd private addresses, switch to IPv6,
>> whatever.  Heck, simple disaggregation of large blocks would release tons of
>> /16 and longer prefixes based on the usage patterns I've seen at most large
>> organizations.  ISPs are not generally included in this, they tend to use what
>> they have. IBM, HP/Compaq/DEC, MIT, Princeton, Harvard, etc., etc.,
>> however, are the poster children for low usage.  They just don't have a big
>> enough incentive to worry about it yet.
>>
>> Also, see my previous posts for references to academic treatment of the fact
>> that hoarding *isn't a bad thing* in the free market.  Of course, this isn't a
>> free market yet, so there's an argument to be made there...
>>
>>> How's that for "fairness" ?? I don't see how you can argue for
>>> treating
>> smaller orgs more fairly by proposing to allow large companies to set
>> whatever ridiculous price they want.
>> The playing field is then level - all new entrants get to simply pay the going
>> rate, with no (perceived?) favouritism towards incumbents or large entrants.
>> This assumes there's a reasonable relationship between the price of a /16
>> and the price of a /24, of course. Smith's "invisible hand" should, in theory,
>> assure this...
>>
>>> I still don't get the needs argument at all. If an org can't show that
>>> it
>> needs the addresses, then why do they need the addresses?
>> Why should I have to disclose to a third party exactly what my plans are?
>> Even the IRS (or CRA, here) doesn't need that level of detail.
>> I'm sure the NSA knows exactly what my plans are, but if I have deep enough
>> pockets, I don't see why this resource - almost alone among all common
>> resources both natural and artificial - should be forbidden to me.
>>
>> The only other example I can think of that is widely-known is New York (and
>> elsewhere) Taxicab licenses... and almost everyone except taxicab license
>> owners thinks that system is, shall we say, suboptimal.
>>
>>
>>
>> All of the points above here are posited on the fact that the US is, at least
>> supposedly, a Smithian capitalist society that embraces the free market.
>> I happen to think capitalism is fundamentally broken, but at the same time
>> I'd rather let the market control what I can and can't do rather than a
>> handful of regulators who I *know* don't have my interests at heart.  (Nor is
>> that their mandate, I don't mean they're behaving
>> maliciously!)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In essence, above is theory, below is practical.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Moving on to problems in the areas of policy, bias, and technical:
>>> I agree that in the past it was difficult for small non-multihomed
>>> orgs to
>> get space. But now that the minimum is a /24, it is so ridiculously easy.
>> Does multihoming, per se, meet the (v4) needs test after the policy changes
>> in 2014?  If yes, I can live with the situation.  If no, then small entities are still
>> getting screwed.
>> As a small-to-medium-sized enterprise, I probably NAT my entire company
>> behind one or two (possibly not even contiguous) IP addresses, with maybe
>> another half dozen publicly-visible servers. But if I want to be multi-homed, I
>> must first use>64 public IPs, and come up with a reason to use>128 public
>> IPs within a year. What if I just need those 6 or 7 IPs to be highly available?
>>
>> Under the current NRPM, the only apparent way a small org can multi-home
>> (v4) is to get a reassignment from an ISP, at which point they're stuck with
>> that ISP pretty much forever, barring a painful and expensive renumbering
>> process (say, ~1000 incoming static VPN tunnels, not all of which are under
>> their direct control?).
>>
>> (I also note that the multihoming justification for IPv6 direct assignment is
>> still there, even as the IPv4 justification is gone.)
>>
>> This is the primary example today of how the NRPM is heavily biased
>> towards large organizations and SPs in the end-stages of IPv4 runout.
>> Meanwhile, if there were no needs test for /24s, and a healthy transfer
>> market, the organization would have the *choice* of paying for PI space or
>> choosing alternate workarounds with higher TCO (e.g. DNS-based load-
>> balancing, manual load-balancing, etc.). Right now, the small organization
>> that doesn't wish to become a sharecropper for their incumbent SP is - as far
>> as I can tell from reading the NRPM tonight - S.O.L.
>>
>> The fact they can still get a direct IPv6 allocation is meaningless until IPv6
>> deployment reaches some reasonable density of penetration (>40%,
>> roughly), and I don't hear anyone here claiming that will happen until we
>> actually run out of IPv4 space, and SPs are no longer able to acquire v4 space
>> on demand.  Small organizations already can't acquire
>> v4 space on demand - but they don't carry much weight with SPs.
>>
>> Yes, the reasoning here is *partially* circular, because there are two related
>> problems converging to screw the small organization (which group includes
>> most of my customers, and in fact, most businesses in Canada).
>>
>> Another way to view this, which has some relevancy to the problem
>> (mentioned earlier today) with separation between ARIN and NANOG, unlike
>> APNIC and RIPE which largely combine those functions, is that this wouldn't
>> be an issue if global routing tables carried prefixes longer than /24.  The main
>> reason that's the case today - as far as I can tell
>> - is TCAM space on hardware routers, which directly translates into: Money.
>>
>> [Rant about certain short-sighted&  self-centered ISPs removed, didn't add
>> any value to the discussion, no matter how much it made me feel better.]
>>
>> Right now we have this mixture of regulatory oversight and "market"
>> forces that indirectly control said regulatory oversight... this isn't IMHO a
>> healthy model, and any steps we can take to move either to a pure
>> regulatory function *or* a pure market-driven regime should improve the
>> situation.  Given that ARIN is located in the U.S., a pure market-driven regime
>> seems like a better idea right now.
>>
>> Regardless, small organizations are - right now - impossibly disadvantaged if
>> they want PI space for any reason, especially multi-homing.
>>
>>
>> If I've misread the NRPM v2014.4 (2014-Sep-17), feel free to correct my
>> interpretation... the only provision for low-usage multihoming of IPv4 I
>> could find is 4.2.3.6, which is commercially punitive, at least in my
>> region.
>>
>> --
>> -Adam Thompson
>>    athompso at athompso.net
>>    Cell: +1 204 291-7950
>>    Fax: +1 204 489-6515
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage 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 farmer at umn.edu  Mon Dec 22 17:48:42 2014
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 16:48:42 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool
 Size per Section 4.4
In-Reply-To: <5474E803.9020504@arin.net>
References: <5474E803.9020504@arin.net>
Message-ID: <54989FCA.2020403@umn.edu>

So far there has been very little discussion on this policy.

Therefore, as one of the AC shepherds for this policy I would like to 
initiate some discussion of this policy.  Here are a few questions for 
the ARIN community to think about and provide feedback on;

- The current CI reservation is for all CI not just IXPs, the problem 
statement discusses growth primarily in the IXPs as justification to 
expand the reservation.  Should we split off a separate reservation pool 
for IXPs?  Or, keep the current common CI pool?

- ARIN-2011-4 the policy that made the original CI reservation had a 
Policy Term of 36 Months following implementation, but this was not in 
the policy text itself and therefore did not get included in the NRPM.

https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_4.html

If applicable, this would have expired July 2014.  So, should there be 
expiration date included in this policy text?  If there should be no 
expiration date, should we explicitly note the removal of any expiration 
date in the discussion of this policy?

- There was discussion of smaller and larger than /24 IXP allocations, 
like /26 on the smaller side and that some very large IXPs are starting 
to need as large as a /22.  Also discussed was, sparse allocation for 
IXPs to allow expansion without renumbering.  Should this policy 
includes any changes along these lines?  Why or why not?

- Should we try to get this to the PPC at NANOG 63 in San Antonio as a 
Recommended Draft Policy?  Or should it wait go to the PPM at ARIN 35 in 
San Francisco as a Recommended Draft Policy?  What about ARIN free pool 
run-out timing?

Do you support the policy as written, if not are there any changes that 
could be made that would allow you to support the policy?

Thanks.

On 11/25/14, 14:35 , ARIN wrote:
> On 20 November 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
> "ARIN-prop-213 Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4" as a Draft
> Policy.
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21 is below and can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_21.html
>
> You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft
> Policy 2014-21 on the Public Policy Mailing List.
>
> The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance
> of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource
> Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are:
>
>    * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
>    * Technically Sound
>    * Supported by the Community
>
> The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) 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,
>
> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
> ## * ##
>
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21
> Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4
>
> Date: 25 November 2014
>
> Problem Statement:
>
> At the time that this section of policy was written, IXP growth in North
> America was stagnant. Efforts of late have increased significantly
> within the IXP standards and other communities to improve critical
> infrastructure in North America. This effort is paying dividends and we
> project that a /16 will not be enough to continue to improve global
> interconnect conditions and support needed IXP CI infrastructure.
>
> Policy statement:
>
> Change to text in section 4.4 Micro Allocations:
>
> Current text:
>
> 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.
>
> Proposed text to replace current text entirely:
>
> ARIN will place an equivalent of a /15 of IPv4 address space in a
> reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4.
>
> Timetable for implementation: Immediate


-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================


From lar at mwtcorp.net  Mon Dec 22 18:09:49 2014
From: lar at mwtcorp.net (lar at mwtcorp.net)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 16:09:49 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness blah blah
In-Reply-To: <b5cc413325bd4eb988a9cb5a310d0c08@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <b5cc413325bd4eb988a9cb5a310d0c08@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <web-623551@be2.mail.trib.com>

On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 19:57:22 +0000
  Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> Please. Will all the amateur economists announcing that markets don't work for finite resources take a look at 
> 
> a) radio spectrum auctions

:RANT ON:

Absolutely. If your in a truly lightly populated rural part of the country the radio spectrum
auctions have been a disaster. - A spectrum analyzer shows vast amounts of unused commercial
spectrum. It's been auctioned off in a manner to maximize revenue to the FCC. Many of the players
buying this spectrum have warehoused it so as to not make it available for potential competitors for
use. Sometimes it has been deployed in a single market to satisfy use it or loose it provisions.
A handful of companies are slowly creating a cartel potentially strangling the wireless data markets
by taking control of the spectrum itself. Small competitive companies that could serve to innovate
and put downward pressure on prices have been pushed to unlicensed frequencies. Now national and
multinational companies are starting to deploy radios on those frequencies. In some cases hundreds
of access points have been deployed in markets without a significant user base.

So why not just "lease" some spectrum from a license holder. Well, I've tried to approach at
lease one license holder about that and I was told that I would have to pay thousands of dollars for
an "application fee" and then they would consider it. (At that time no application was available.)
I took that as a polite "go away kid don't bother me" answer and not a legitimate process based on
the lack of structure about the process.

Many of us have been trying to convince the FCC that a meaningful needs test for radio spectrum is
critical to allow a competitive marketplace to survive. Of course all they seem to be able to see
is the fat checks they are getting from the Big Boys. On occasion the FCC has been willing to throw
scraps to to the rest of us but so far by the time they get through the rule making process they
remember that the BB's need most of that too, and are willing to pay for it. (See TV white space,
ongoing 3.5 Ghz rulemaking.)

Removing needs tests by ARIN when we've seen what has happened in the radio spectrum
seems to me to be lunacy.

:RANT OFF: (sorry)

> b) land/real estate markets
Land use planning and zoning seriously affect the free and open market here.
  
> c) ipv4 numbers in RIPE region, where needs tests for transfers were basically abolished
Are we sure how this is going to come out?

> d) stock markets (there are a fixed number of shares for most companies)

Again highly regulated. As you know there are entire shelves in the library dedicated
to who has an unfair advantage. The number of outstanding shares are not fixed in
the long term. Short sales can affect the number in the short term also. If an issue
price gets too high the company can lower it with a stock split. If the price gets
to low a reverse split can be used to affect that also.

> e) ....about 150 other examples one could provide if one wanted to waste further time
> 
> we've had this debate over and over again, for the past 6 years. It's boring and mostly useless. 
> Nearly all ISPs outside of North Korea exist in a market economy. Ipv4 number markets are here. They are not going away unless 
>scarcity goes away.
> 
> Useful discussions of this topic focus will on a particular policy proposal (e.g., 2014-14), will base their arguments for or 
>against particular provisions of a policy on sound techno-economic analysis and not on opinions regarding "fairness" or 
>"capitalism," and will take account of real things happening in the real world (such as ipv4 number block leases, RIPE policies, 
>etc.). 
> 
> Rant over. :-)
> 
> --MM
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
>> On Behalf Of Frank Bulk
>> Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 9:38 AM
>> To: 'Adam Thompson'; Randy Carpenter; ARIN-PPML at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>> 
>> For those of us in the "NAT is bad"
>> (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v26BAlfWBm8) camp, the risk I
>> perceive with a purely capitalistic model is that many organizations will sell
>> their IPv4 address space to the highest bidder (who may hoard it) and even
>> more NAT will be deployed.  While the effects of CGN are documented (i.e.
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7021), I think that many network operators will
>> (choose to) ignore those (to the detriment of their end users) or capitalize on
>> that by charging extra to those who don't want to go through CGN.  In
>> reaction, applications and services will be further modified to address CGN,
>> the opposite of my preferred approach towards end-to-end communication.
>> 
>> Frank
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
>> On Behalf Of Adam Thompson
>> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 9:43 PM
>> To: Randy Carpenter; ARIN-PPML at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>> 
>> On 14-12-19 08:02 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
>> > A capitalistic model does not work for a finite resource like IP
>> addresses.
>> I'm not even a Smithian capitalist, and I see the first problem here:
>> 
>> Why doesn't it work?
>> 
>> Market stability will be reached according to every economic theory I've read,
>> regardless of whether the resources are finite or not. It may be that stability
>> means a gradually-increasing price for a while followed by rapid inflation, but
>> estimates I've heard posit that IPv6 deployment will be widespread by the
>> time the market price would otherwise skyrocket.
>> 
>> > All that would happen is that a large company could just buy up all of
>> > the
>> space, and then set its own price for everyone else.
>> Really?  How many universities and large organizations have /8s, /9s, and
>> /10s, that they would almost immediately start the process of monetizing?
>> It's "easy" (*cough*) - switch to NAT'd private addresses, switch to IPv6,
>> whatever.  Heck, simple disaggregation of large blocks would release tons of
>> /16 and longer prefixes based on the usage patterns I've seen at most large
>> organizations.  ISPs are not generally included in this, they tend to use what
>> they have. IBM, HP/Compaq/DEC, MIT, Princeton, Harvard, etc., etc.,
>> however, are the poster children for low usage.  They just don't have a big
>> enough incentive to worry about it yet.
>> 
>> Also, see my previous posts for references to academic treatment of the fact
>> that hoarding *isn't a bad thing* in the free market.  Of course, this isn't a
>> free market yet, so there's an argument to be made there...
>> 
>> > How's that for "fairness" ?? I don't see how you can argue for
>> > treating
>> smaller orgs more fairly by proposing to allow large companies to set
>> whatever ridiculous price they want.
>> The playing field is then level - all new entrants get to simply pay the going
>> rate, with no (perceived?) favouritism towards incumbents or large entrants.
>> This assumes there's a reasonable relationship between the price of a /16
>> and the price of a /24, of course. Smith's "invisible hand" should, in theory,
>> assure this...
>> 
>> > I still don't get the needs argument at all. If an org can't show that
>> > it
>> needs the addresses, then why do they need the addresses?
>> Why should I have to disclose to a third party exactly what my plans are?
>> Even the IRS (or CRA, here) doesn't need that level of detail.
>> I'm sure the NSA knows exactly what my plans are, but if I have deep enough
>> pockets, I don't see why this resource - almost alone among all common
>> resources both natural and artificial - should be forbidden to me.
>> 
>> The only other example I can think of that is widely-known is New York (and
>> elsewhere) Taxicab licenses... and almost everyone except taxicab license
>> owners thinks that system is, shall we say, suboptimal.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> All of the points above here are posited on the fact that the US is, at least
>> supposedly, a Smithian capitalist society that embraces the free market.
>> I happen to think capitalism is fundamentally broken, but at the same time
>> I'd rather let the market control what I can and can't do rather than a
>> handful of regulators who I *know* don't have my interests at heart.  (Nor is
>> that their mandate, I don't mean they're behaving
>> maliciously!)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> In essence, above is theory, below is practical.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Moving on to problems in the areas of policy, bias, and technical:
>> > I agree that in the past it was difficult for small non-multihomed
>> > orgs to
>> get space. But now that the minimum is a /24, it is so ridiculously easy.
>> Does multihoming, per se, meet the (v4) needs test after the policy changes
>> in 2014?  If yes, I can live with the situation.  If no, then small entities are still
>> getting screwed.
>> As a small-to-medium-sized enterprise, I probably NAT my entire company
>> behind one or two (possibly not even contiguous) IP addresses, with maybe
>> another half dozen publicly-visible servers. But if I want to be multi-homed, I
>> must first use >64 public IPs, and come up with a reason to use >128 public
>> IPs within a year. What if I just need those 6 or 7 IPs to be highly available?
>> 
>> Under the current NRPM, the only apparent way a small org can multi-home
>> (v4) is to get a reassignment from an ISP, at which point they're stuck with
>> that ISP pretty much forever, barring a painful and expensive renumbering
>> process (say, ~1000 incoming static VPN tunnels, not all of which are under
>> their direct control?).
>> 
>> (I also note that the multihoming justification for IPv6 direct assignment is
>> still there, even as the IPv4 justification is gone.)
>> 
>> This is the primary example today of how the NRPM is heavily biased
>> towards large organizations and SPs in the end-stages of IPv4 runout.
>> Meanwhile, if there were no needs test for /24s, and a healthy transfer
>> market, the organization would have the *choice* of paying for PI space or
>> choosing alternate workarounds with higher TCO (e.g. DNS-based load-
>> balancing, manual load-balancing, etc.). Right now, the small organization
>> that doesn't wish to become a sharecropper for their incumbent SP is - as far
>> as I can tell from reading the NRPM tonight - S.O.L.
>> 
>> The fact they can still get a direct IPv6 allocation is meaningless until IPv6
>> deployment reaches some reasonable density of penetration (>40%,
>> roughly), and I don't hear anyone here claiming that will happen until we
>> actually run out of IPv4 space, and SPs are no longer able to acquire v4 space
>> on demand.  Small organizations already can't acquire
>> v4 space on demand - but they don't carry much weight with SPs.
>> 
>> Yes, the reasoning here is *partially* circular, because there are two related
>> problems converging to screw the small organization (which group includes
>> most of my customers, and in fact, most businesses in Canada).
>> 
>> Another way to view this, which has some relevancy to the problem
>> (mentioned earlier today) with separation between ARIN and NANOG, unlike
>> APNIC and RIPE which largely combine those functions, is that this wouldn't
>> be an issue if global routing tables carried prefixes longer than /24.  The main
>> reason that's the case today - as far as I can tell
>> - is TCAM space on hardware routers, which directly translates into: Money.
>> 
>> [Rant about certain short-sighted & self-centered ISPs removed, didn't add
>> any value to the discussion, no matter how much it made me feel better.]
>> 
>> Right now we have this mixture of regulatory oversight and "market"
>> forces that indirectly control said regulatory oversight... this isn't IMHO a
>> healthy model, and any steps we can take to move either to a pure
>> regulatory function *or* a pure market-driven regime should improve the
>> situation.  Given that ARIN is located in the U.S., a pure market-driven regime
>> seems like a better idea right now.
>> 
>> Regardless, small organizations are - right now - impossibly disadvantaged if
>> they want PI space for any reason, especially multi-homing.
>> 
>> 
>> If I've misread the NRPM v2014.4 (2014-Sep-17), feel free to correct my
>> interpretation... the only provision for low-usage multihoming of IPv4 I
>> could find is 4.2.3.6, which is commercially punitive, at least in my
>> region.
>> 
>> --
>> -Adam Thompson
>>   athompso at athompso.net
>>   Cell: +1 204 291-7950
>>   Fax: +1 204 489-6515
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage 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.

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


From leo.vegoda at icann.org  Mon Dec 22 18:41:38 2014
From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 23:41:38 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <54989AB5.2070504@ipinc.net>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net
	works.com><0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com><5B9E90747FA297	4
	D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><20141218165833.G
	C33386@mx1.yitter.info><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAI
	L.eclipse-networks.com> <549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<54953C9D.1050303@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A5671BF@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<54989AB5.2070504@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <4649919b39dd415896710ab4490d5540@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

[...]

> Europe can get away with ripe-604 precisely because a) it has no Legacy
> IPv4

Looking at the most recent copy of 
ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/split/ripe.db.inetnum.gz  I see 40,557 
registrations with a status of "LEGACY".

> and b) a lot of it has switched over to IPv6 already.

Very much a curate's egg, I'm afraid. There are some countries doing very well 
but a whole lot more that have trouble measuring any IPv6 deployment. Google's 
map shows this graphically: 
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption

> Plus there
> is a lot more regulation of NETWORKS in Europe.  Are you forgetting RIPE
> assigns IP addressing to Russia?  Are you going to argue that's now a
> free democracy with an open market now?

Looking at https://www.ripe.net/membership/indices/RU.html  I count 1,455 RIPE 
NCC members who are either based in Russia or state that they provide 
registration services there. I make no claims as to how open or otherwise the 
Russian market is but it seems to have a fairly large number of participants.

Kind regards,

Leo Vegoda
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5475 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141222/9ed3f2ac/attachment.p7s>

From mysidia at gmail.com  Mon Dec 22 19:29:18 2014
From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 18:29:18 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <54989AB5.2070504@ipinc.net>
References: <0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com>
	<549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<54953C9D.1050303@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A5671BF@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<54989AB5.2070504@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <CAAAwwbXLQUHmp0PWK3xos+-P4KGcV8TX8-N9Jv3WLwOu3cRFmA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:

> I would support a call for no needs testing on IPv6 allocations.  Of course
> once obtained then it would be the end users problem to get their upstream
> to route it.  But if more end users obtained IPv6 then it would increase the

RPKI Opt-In and demonstration of route in the global table within 90
days with at least one certified resource  in lieu of needs test for
end user IPv6   /32 or longer.  ^_^

--
-JH


From frnkblk at iname.com  Mon Dec 22 20:47:40 2014
From: frnkblk at iname.com (Frank Bulk)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 19:47:40 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness blah blah
In-Reply-To: <b5cc413325bd4eb988a9cb5a310d0c08@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <b5cc413325bd4eb988a9cb5a310d0c08@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <001501d01e52$7000da40$50028ec0$@iname.com>

Dr. Mueller,

I don't believe the IP market would adequately price in the more distant but
negative effects of CGN, in much the same way that the price of automotive
fuel doesn't adequately price in the environmental effects of vehicles on
the road or that smoking has on health care costs.

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 1:57 PM
To: ARIN-PPML at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness blah blah

Please. Will all the amateur economists announcing that markets don't work
for finite resources take a look at 

a) radio spectrum auctions
b) land/real estate markets
c) ipv4 numbers in RIPE region, where needs tests for transfers were
basically abolished
d) stock markets (there are a fixed number of shares for most companies)
e) ....about 150 other examples one could provide if one wanted to waste
further time

we've had this debate over and over again, for the past 6 years. It's boring
and mostly useless. 
Nearly all ISPs outside of North Korea exist in a market economy. Ipv4
number markets are here. They are not going away unless scarcity goes away.

Useful discussions of this topic focus will on a particular policy proposal
(e.g., 2014-14), will base their arguments for or against particular
provisions of a policy on sound techno-economic analysis and not on opinions
regarding "fairness" or "capitalism," and will take account of real things
happening in the real world (such as ipv4 number block leases, RIPE
policies, etc.). 

Rant over. :-)

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
> On Behalf Of Frank Bulk
> Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 9:38 AM
> To: 'Adam Thompson'; Randy Carpenter; ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
> 
> For those of us in the "NAT is bad"
> (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v26BAlfWBm8) camp, the risk I
> perceive with a purely capitalistic model is that many organizations will
sell
> their IPv4 address space to the highest bidder (who may hoard it) and even
> more NAT will be deployed.  While the effects of CGN are documented (i.e.
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7021), I think that many network operators
will
> (choose to) ignore those (to the detriment of their end users) or
capitalize on
> that by charging extra to those who don't want to go through CGN.  In
> reaction, applications and services will be further modified to address
CGN,
> the opposite of my preferred approach towards end-to-end communication.
> 
> Frank
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
> On Behalf Of Adam Thompson
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 9:43 PM
> To: Randy Carpenter; ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
> 
> On 14-12-19 08:02 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
> > A capitalistic model does not work for a finite resource like IP
> addresses.
> I'm not even a Smithian capitalist, and I see the first problem here:
> 
> Why doesn't it work?
> 
> Market stability will be reached according to every economic theory I've
read,
> regardless of whether the resources are finite or not. It may be that
stability
> means a gradually-increasing price for a while followed by rapid
inflation, but
> estimates I've heard posit that IPv6 deployment will be widespread by the
> time the market price would otherwise skyrocket.
> 
> > All that would happen is that a large company could just buy up all of
> > the
> space, and then set its own price for everyone else.
> Really?  How many universities and large organizations have /8s, /9s, and
> /10s, that they would almost immediately start the process of monetizing?
> It's "easy" (*cough*) - switch to NAT'd private addresses, switch to IPv6,
> whatever.  Heck, simple disaggregation of large blocks would release tons
of
> /16 and longer prefixes based on the usage patterns I've seen at most
large
> organizations.  ISPs are not generally included in this, they tend to use
what
> they have. IBM, HP/Compaq/DEC, MIT, Princeton, Harvard, etc., etc.,
> however, are the poster children for low usage.  They just don't have a
big
> enough incentive to worry about it yet.
> 
> Also, see my previous posts for references to academic treatment of the
fact
> that hoarding *isn't a bad thing* in the free market.  Of course, this
isn't a
> free market yet, so there's an argument to be made there...
> 
> > How's that for "fairness" ?? I don't see how you can argue for
> > treating
> smaller orgs more fairly by proposing to allow large companies to set
> whatever ridiculous price they want.
> The playing field is then level - all new entrants get to simply pay the
going
> rate, with no (perceived?) favouritism towards incumbents or large
entrants.
> This assumes there's a reasonable relationship between the price of a /16
> and the price of a /24, of course. Smith's "invisible hand" should, in
theory,
> assure this...
> 
> > I still don't get the needs argument at all. If an org can't show that
> > it
> needs the addresses, then why do they need the addresses?
> Why should I have to disclose to a third party exactly what my plans are?
> Even the IRS (or CRA, here) doesn't need that level of detail.
> I'm sure the NSA knows exactly what my plans are, but if I have deep
enough
> pockets, I don't see why this resource - almost alone among all common
> resources both natural and artificial - should be forbidden to me.
> 
> The only other example I can think of that is widely-known is New York
(and
> elsewhere) Taxicab licenses... and almost everyone except taxicab license
> owners thinks that system is, shall we say, suboptimal.
> 
> 
> 
> All of the points above here are posited on the fact that the US is, at
least
> supposedly, a Smithian capitalist society that embraces the free market.
> I happen to think capitalism is fundamentally broken, but at the same time
> I'd rather let the market control what I can and can't do rather than a
> handful of regulators who I *know* don't have my interests at heart.  (Nor
is
> that their mandate, I don't mean they're behaving
> maliciously!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In essence, above is theory, below is practical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moving on to problems in the areas of policy, bias, and technical:
> > I agree that in the past it was difficult for small non-multihomed
> > orgs to
> get space. But now that the minimum is a /24, it is so ridiculously easy.
> Does multihoming, per se, meet the (v4) needs test after the policy
changes
> in 2014?  If yes, I can live with the situation.  If no, then small
entities are still
> getting screwed.
> As a small-to-medium-sized enterprise, I probably NAT my entire company
> behind one or two (possibly not even contiguous) IP addresses, with maybe
> another half dozen publicly-visible servers. But if I want to be
multi-homed, I
> must first use >64 public IPs, and come up with a reason to use >128
public
> IPs within a year. What if I just need those 6 or 7 IPs to be highly
available?
> 
> Under the current NRPM, the only apparent way a small org can multi-home
> (v4) is to get a reassignment from an ISP, at which point they're stuck
with
> that ISP pretty much forever, barring a painful and expensive renumbering
> process (say, ~1000 incoming static VPN tunnels, not all of which are
under
> their direct control?).
> 
> (I also note that the multihoming justification for IPv6 direct assignment
is
> still there, even as the IPv4 justification is gone.)
> 
> This is the primary example today of how the NRPM is heavily biased
> towards large organizations and SPs in the end-stages of IPv4 runout.
> Meanwhile, if there were no needs test for /24s, and a healthy transfer
> market, the organization would have the *choice* of paying for PI space or
> choosing alternate workarounds with higher TCO (e.g. DNS-based load-
> balancing, manual load-balancing, etc.). Right now, the small organization
> that doesn't wish to become a sharecropper for their incumbent SP is - as
far
> as I can tell from reading the NRPM tonight - S.O.L.
> 
> The fact they can still get a direct IPv6 allocation is meaningless until
IPv6
> deployment reaches some reasonable density of penetration (>40%,
> roughly), and I don't hear anyone here claiming that will happen until we
> actually run out of IPv4 space, and SPs are no longer able to acquire v4
space
> on demand.  Small organizations already can't acquire
> v4 space on demand - but they don't carry much weight with SPs.
> 
> Yes, the reasoning here is *partially* circular, because there are two
related
> problems converging to screw the small organization (which group includes
> most of my customers, and in fact, most businesses in Canada).
> 
> Another way to view this, which has some relevancy to the problem
> (mentioned earlier today) with separation between ARIN and NANOG, unlike
> APNIC and RIPE which largely combine those functions, is that this
wouldn't
> be an issue if global routing tables carried prefixes longer than /24.
The main
> reason that's the case today - as far as I can tell
> - is TCAM space on hardware routers, which directly translates into:
Money.
> 
> [Rant about certain short-sighted & self-centered ISPs removed, didn't add
> any value to the discussion, no matter how much it made me feel better.]
> 
> Right now we have this mixture of regulatory oversight and "market"
> forces that indirectly control said regulatory oversight... this isn't
IMHO a
> healthy model, and any steps we can take to move either to a pure
> regulatory function *or* a pure market-driven regime should improve the
> situation.  Given that ARIN is located in the U.S., a pure market-driven
regime
> seems like a better idea right now.
> 
> Regardless, small organizations are - right now - impossibly disadvantaged
if
> they want PI space for any reason, especially multi-homing.
> 
> 
> If I've misread the NRPM v2014.4 (2014-Sep-17), feel free to correct my
> interpretation... the only provision for low-usage multihoming of IPv4 I
> could find is 4.2.3.6, which is commercially punitive, at least in my
> region.
> 
> --
> -Adam Thompson
>   athompso at athompso.net
>   Cell: +1 204 291-7950
>   Fax: +1 204 489-6515
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage 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 mueller at syr.edu  Tue Dec 23 10:04:36 2014
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 15:04:36 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness blah blah
In-Reply-To: <5498846F.8030301@umn.edu>
References: <b5cc413325bd4eb988a9cb5a310d0c08@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<5498846F.8030301@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <da1927d89e9d4470aae1249a9ad25b7b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> 
> So my plea is, "DON'T PANIC", everyone please have the patience and dignity
> to let things take their coarse.  The ARIN free pool is not long for this world,
> start saying your goodbyes, and begin your grieving process now.  Just like
> the death of an old friend, its going to take us a little time to get use to the
> world without our old friend (the ARIN free pool) in it.
> 

Well put ;-) 
Only thing I would add is that we do have a specific policy proposal that relates to this: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_14.html 
Draft Policy ARIN-2014-14: Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers

It would be nice if the discussion was focused on that. 


From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Tue Dec 23 15:23:12 2014
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 20:23:12 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <54989AB5.2070504@ipinc.net>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net
	works.com><0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com><5B9E90747FA29
	7 4
	D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><20141218165833.
	G
	C33386@mx1.yitter.info><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAI
	L.eclipse-networks.com> <549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<54953C9D.1050303@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A5671BF@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<54989AB5.2070504@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A57A790@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

I find your continuing unprofessional tone towards me insulting and I would appreciate it if you would cease using it!  I didn't realize that this Community forum is only for folks who think exactly the same as you or the same as the vocal majority.  I find very little dissent here in this Community and it is from dissent that improvements are made.  Over the years I've seen an occasional dissenting opinion from an Org (usually small )and they immediately get shot down and I never see comments from them again so I assume they decide it isn't worth their time to continue commenting.  As you have noticed I have chosen to not go away and will continue participating and commenting as I'm told this community is the only place to effect policy change for ARIN allocations. 

As for your argument below. To say that the experience in RIPE has no bearing here is ridiculous.  They are not identical but they are similar. Certainly their experience is worth studying.  RIPE seems to be handling the challenge of serving many disparate countries from all sides of the ideological spectrum with their relaxed needs testing per ripe-604 reasonably well.  To dismiss their real world experiment in relaxed needs testing and what we can learn from it in this region out of hand is dismissing the opportunity to improve ARINs policies would not be good stewardship.  My opinion.  

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: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net] 
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 5:27 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness


Didn't your mommy ever teach you that just because Europe does something doesn't mean you need to do it also?

You cannot have it both ways.  ARIN exists as a regulatory body.  If it's usefulness as a regulatory body is over then call for it's dissolution.  Otherwise, it's going to do what it's supposed to do which is to prevent the IP number space from becoming hopelessly fragmented and router slots from ballooning.

Europe can get away with ripe-604 precisely because a) it has no Legacy
IPv4 and b) a lot of it has switched over to IPv6 already.  Plus there is a lot more regulation of NETWORKS in Europe.  Are you forgetting RIPE assigns IP addressing to Russia?  Are you going to argue that's now a free democracy with an open market now?  That just happens to have had the same dictat...I mean "president" for the last generation?  Please, stop before you embarrass yourself.

I would support a call for no needs testing on IPv6 allocations.  Of course once obtained then it would be the end users problem to get their upstream to route it.  But if more end users obtained IPv6 then it would increase the push on the retail networks (Frontier, RoadRunner, SBC
CenturyLink) to have their support folks at least learn about what it is!!!

But for IPv4?  I see no reason to turn it into a free for all.

Ted

On 12/21/2014 11:41 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> When the government meddles and plays favorites then capitalism stops 
> working.  At the low end of allocation policy it needs to be 
> capitalistic and all we need is the equivalent of the Anti-Trust laws 
> in policy to keep the big guys in check.  2014-14 moves in this 
> direction.  We certainly don't need Anti-Trust equivalent policies on 
> the low end of allocations.
>
> Some folks here respond to me as if I'm a heretic and my input is 
> radical and if implemented the world would somehow end.  I disagree.
> I have recently been advocating removing needs test just from the ARIN 
> Minimum block size allocation and my proposed 2014-18 would have done 
> that.  A proposal to do a whole lot more than I have proposed - not 
> only has been proposed in the RIPE region - but tweaked, improved, and 
> passed - as ripe-604.  Are the folks who proposed and voted to pass 
> ripe-604 heretics too?  I think not.  I think they realized that needs 
> testing couldn't save IPv4 and wanted to level the playing field so 
> they passed ripe-604. The world has not ended in Europe because of it.
>
> I think we need an ARIN equivalent of ripe-604 but I figured that I 
> would start at the low end where I think small Orgs would benefit just 
> trying to remove the needs testing for Orgs who just need the minimum 
> and don't need a minimum block more than once per year.  This would be 
> a pretty small change to current policy and if advocating for that 
> makes me a heretic then so be it!  My two cents.
>
> 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: Ted Mittelstaedt 
> [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net] Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 4:09 AM To:
> Steven Ryerse Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet 
> Fairness
>
>
> Your not talking about a Capitalistic model your talking about a 
> Laissez-faire model.  While this might make some Libertarians have wet 
> dreams it is a recipe for anarchy which is why no economy on Earth 
> operates this way.
>
> What is generally understood about Capitalism today is that the
> catch-22 of Capitalism is that if you have a market that is completely 
> controlled by the government, that is the opposite of Capitalism - but 
> if you have a market that has zero government controls it immediately 
> devolves into a set of monopolies which are also the opposite of 
> Capitalism.
>
> In short, the cost of real economic freedom is constant government 
> tinkering.
>
> I realize it's difficult to understand for a lot of people.  The Tea 
> Party in the United States is filled with people who don't understand 
> it.
>
> ARIN resource allocations are as close to Capitalism today as we are 
> going to get.  Once the transfer market was approved, that ended the 
> last vestige of authoritarian control by ARIN.
>
> The needs testing is far less intrusive than government controls on 
> automobiles, yet nobody would argue today the US does not have 
> competition in the automobile market.
>
> Ted
>
> On 12/19/2014 3:59 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>> I'm not being ignorant I am trying to get to bottom of the 
>> discussion.  I wish ARINs resources were issued by ARIN in a 
>> capitalistic manner.  Then as long as an Org is willing to pay the 
>> going rate resources could be acquired guaranteed as long as there 
>> are sellers.  There is no needs testing in that model just supply and 
>> demand and the ability to pay.  How do we change to the Capitalistic 
>> model from what we got now?
>>
>> 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 Ted Mittelstaedt
>> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 11:23 AM To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>>
>> First point here Steven is you have completely ignored and failed to 
>> respond to my first comment regarding why ARIN is the way it is
>> - because it exists in a capitalistic society - because you have no 
>> answer for that.
>>
>> I do not really believe for a second that you really want an honest 
>> debate on this issue.  What you are doing is sitting back and cherry 
>> picking weak arguments to respond to, and ignoring strong ones.  So I 
>> am not going to waste much more time with you on this.
>>
>> But I will say that your comment:
>>
>> " If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that really make it 
>> OK to start denying small Orgs .com domain name requests?"
>>
>> is one of the most ignorant I've seen on this list in quite a while.
>>
>> The DNS system exists to make IP addresses that are hard to remember, 
>> replaced by domain names that are easy to remember.  The average 
>> English speaking adult knows about 50,000 English words.
>> There's over 100 million .com domain names registered at this point.  
>> We have far and away exceeded the number of English .com one word 
>> domain names that an average person would know.
>>
>> Therefore we have long ago "run out" of .com domain names.  Oh sure, 
>> you can still register new .com domain names that are nonsense like 
>> fdgcjghhgeafvrar.com or you can make up elaborate long sentences like 
>> thisismynewdomainanemisntitkewel.com and register those names, but 
>> neither of those meets the bar of being an easy to remember name.  
>> They are, in fact, harder to remember than the IP addresses that they 
>> are supposed to make "easy to remember"
>>
>> There
>>
>> On 12/18/2014 9:15 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>> Thanks for your comments!  Actually the total number of possible 
>>> .com permutations is limited too.  IPv4 addresses and .com domain 
>>> names are both just Internet resources that Internet users need to 
>>> use the Internet.  Obviously there are less IPv4 addresses than .com 
>>> combinations, but IPv4 is still the only way to access most of the 
>>> Internet.  While ARIN has resources to allocate - I'm absolutely 
>>> fine limiting the size of an allocation to match the size of an Org 
>>> and their network, but I'm not fine with denying an Org any 
>>> resources.
>>>
>>> Also IPv4 cannot somehow be saved by conservation.  Regardless of 
>>> any policy, ARIN will run out of IPv4 probably within the next year.  
>>> If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that really make it 
>>> OK to start denying small Orgs .com domain name requests?
>>>
>>> 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 Andrew Sullivan
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:59 AM To:
>>> arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 04:35:41PM +0000, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If it is not OK to deny the Minimum domain (available) name to an 
>>>> Org, then it isn?t OK to deny an Org the Minimum  IP allocation.  
>>>> They are both Internet resources.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The analogy seems faulty to me.  The number space is finite (and in 
>>> the case of v4, not very large).  The name space in any given 
>>> registry is admittedly not infinite, since (1) it's limited to 
>>> labels 63 octets long from the LDH repertoire and (2) useful 
>>> mnemonics are generally shorter than 63 octets and usually a 
>>> wordlike thing in some natural language.  There are, however, lots 
>>> of registries (more all the time! Thanks, ICANN!); and last I 
>>> checked neither info nor biz was anything close to the size (or
>>> utility) of com, even though they've both been around since 2001 and 
>>> have rather similar registration rules.  So, there is an argument in 
>>> favour of tight rules for allocation of v4 numbers that is not 
>>> available in the name case.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> A
>>>
>>> -- Andrew Sullivan ajs at anvilwalrusden.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.
>>> _______________________________________________ PPML You are 
>>> receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public 
>>> Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your 
>>> mailing list subscription at:
>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact 
>>> info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>> _______________________________________________ PPML You are 
>> receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public 
>> Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your 
>> mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact 
>> info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

From hannigan at gmail.com  Tue Dec 23 15:50:16 2014
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 15:50:16 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool
 Size per Section 4.4
In-Reply-To: <54989FCA.2020403@umn.edu>
References: <5474E803.9020504@arin.net> <54989FCA.2020403@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5NwkTRg-4mq8OPx_eHWxzOr2HpxwUpPwAFddsXc3aW3DA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 5:48 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:

> So far there has been very little discussion on this policy.
>

Not really. I recall a huge thread previously that demonstrated much
support. What's the hold up?


>
> Therefore, as one of the AC shepherds for this policy I would like to
> initiate some discussion of this policy.  Here are a few questions for the
> ARIN community to think about and provide feedback on;
>
> - The current CI reservation is for all CI not just IXPs, the problem
> statement discusses growth primarily in the IXPs as justification to expand
> the reservation.  Should we split off a separate reservation pool for
> IXPs?  Or, keep the current common CI pool?
>

If you want to complicate this further, yes, let's do that. If not, are you
suggesting that there still isn't a large enough reservation?

I see some merit in your suggestion, but dragging this out beyond
exhaustion doesn't sound like a wise idea. I'd go with a larger reservation
if you are concerned and have data points.



>
> - ARIN-2011-4 the policy that made the original CI reservation had a
> Policy Term of 36 Months following implementation, but this was not in the
> policy text itself and therefore did not get included in the NRPM.
>
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_4.html
>
> If applicable, this would have expired July 2014.  So, should there be
> expiration date included in this policy text?  If there should be no
> expiration date, should we explicitly note the removal of any expiration
> date in the discussion of this policy?
>

I was the author of that revision and the author or this one. That was
based on a belief in 2011 that ARIN would have been long out of v4
addresses and v6 adoption would be well underway. Expiry in retrospect
seems unnecessary since dual stacking is likely to prevail in CI for quite
some time to come. As it should.


> - There was discussion of smaller and larger than /24 IXP allocations,
> like /26 on the smaller side and that some very large IXPs are starting to
> need as large as a /22.  Also discussed was, sparse allocation for IXPs to
> allow expansion without renumbering.  Should this policy includes any
> changes along these lines?  Why or why not?
>

There's nothing that codifies that an CI prefix can not be routed so
linkage to the minimum allocation makes sense.



>
> - Should we try to get this to the PPC at NANOG 63 in San Antonio as a
> Recommended Draft Policy?  Or should it wait go to the PPM at ARIN 35 in
> San Francisco as a Recommended Draft Policy?  What about ARIN free pool
> run-out timing?
>

Speaking as an Open-IX community (board) member http://www.open-ix.org/ and
referencing previous discussions here that pointed there as well, there is
a substantial and demonstrated amount of support for this.

San Antonio.



>
> Do you support the policy as written, if not are there any changes that
> could be made that would allow you to support the policy?
>
>
As written.

Best,

-M<
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141223/4b2ad7f5/attachment.htm>

From mwinters at edwardrose.com  Tue Dec 23 17:15:28 2014
From: mwinters at edwardrose.com (Mike Winters)
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 22:15:28 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A57A790@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net
	works.com><0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com><5B9E90747FA29	7
	4	D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><20141218165833.
	G	C33386@mx1.yitter.info><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-MAI
	L.eclipse-networks.com> <549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<54953C9D.1050303@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A5671BF@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<54989AB5.2070504@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A57A790@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <EDE6239A5447704C9889F863709AAA190A9A283D@EXCH2.charlotte.lan>

This whole discussion is ridiculous.

Why are you arguing about a fix and what needs to be changed when you have not clearly defined the problem let alone gotten any consensus that there is a problem that needs fixing?  All I have seen are vague claims and/or statements.  Your premise seems to be that anyone that wants something should be able to get it no questions asked.  To me, that is like saying that we should allow children to drive vehicles (maybe limit them to a compact car).  After all, the legal driving age is just an arbitrary number defined by a community.

I think if you are serious about your cause, you need to go back to the beginning and clearly and concisely state what specifically the perceived problem is, why it is a problem, and why needs testing should be eliminated.  There are many intelligent people on this list and the better they understand what you think is broken, the more likely the community is to come up with a solution that works for everyone.

Mike Winters

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 3:23 PM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness

I find your continuing unprofessional tone towards me insulting and I would appreciate it if you would cease using it!  I didn't realize that this Community forum is only for folks who think exactly the same as you or the same as the vocal majority.  I find very little dissent here in this Community and it is from dissent that improvements are made.  Over the years I've seen an occasional dissenting opinion from an Org (usually small )and they immediately get shot down and I never see comments from them again so I assume they decide it isn't worth their time to continue commenting.  As you have noticed I have chosen to not go away and will continue participating and commenting as I'm told this community is the only place to effect policy change for ARIN allocations. 

As for your argument below. To say that the experience in RIPE has no bearing here is ridiculous.  They are not identical but they are similar. Certainly their experience is worth studying.  RIPE seems to be handling the challenge of serving many disparate countries from all sides of the ideological spectrum with their relaxed needs testing per ripe-604 reasonably well.  To dismiss their real world experiment in relaxed needs testing and what we can learn from it in this region out of hand is dismissing the opportunity to improve ARINs policies would not be good stewardship.  My opinion.  

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: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net] 
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 5:27 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness


Didn't your mommy ever teach you that just because Europe does something doesn't mean you need to do it also?

You cannot have it both ways.  ARIN exists as a regulatory body.  If it's usefulness as a regulatory body is over then call for it's dissolution.  Otherwise, it's going to do what it's supposed to do which is to prevent the IP number space from becoming hopelessly fragmented and router slots from ballooning.

Europe can get away with ripe-604 precisely because a) it has no Legacy
IPv4 and b) a lot of it has switched over to IPv6 already.  Plus there is a lot more regulation of NETWORKS in Europe.  Are you forgetting RIPE assigns IP addressing to Russia?  Are you going to argue that's now a free democracy with an open market now?  That just happens to have had the same dictat...I mean "president" for the last generation?  Please, stop before you embarrass yourself.

I would support a call for no needs testing on IPv6 allocations.  Of course once obtained then it would be the end users problem to get their upstream to route it.  But if more end users obtained IPv6 then it would increase the push on the retail networks (Frontier, RoadRunner, SBC
CenturyLink) to have their support folks at least learn about what it is!!!

But for IPv4?  I see no reason to turn it into a free for all.

Ted

On 12/21/2014 11:41 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> When the government meddles and plays favorites then capitalism stops 
> working.  At the low end of allocation policy it needs to be 
> capitalistic and all we need is the equivalent of the Anti-Trust laws 
> in policy to keep the big guys in check.  2014-14 moves in this 
> direction.  We certainly don't need Anti-Trust equivalent policies on 
> the low end of allocations.
>
> Some folks here respond to me as if I'm a heretic and my input is 
> radical and if implemented the world would somehow end.  I disagree.
> I have recently been advocating removing needs test just from the ARIN 
> Minimum block size allocation and my proposed 2014-18 would have done 
> that.  A proposal to do a whole lot more than I have proposed - not 
> only has been proposed in the RIPE region - but tweaked, improved, and 
> passed - as ripe-604.  Are the folks who proposed and voted to pass 
> ripe-604 heretics too?  I think not.  I think they realized that needs 
> testing couldn't save IPv4 and wanted to level the playing field so 
> they passed ripe-604. The world has not ended in Europe because of it.
>
> I think we need an ARIN equivalent of ripe-604 but I figured that I 
> would start at the low end where I think small Orgs would benefit just 
> trying to remove the needs testing for Orgs who just need the minimum 
> and don't need a minimum block more than once per year.  This would be 
> a pretty small change to current policy and if advocating for that 
> makes me a heretic then so be it!  My two cents.
>
> 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: Ted Mittelstaedt 
> [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net] Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 4:09 AM To:
> Steven Ryerse Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet 
> Fairness
>
>
> Your not talking about a Capitalistic model your talking about a 
> Laissez-faire model.  While this might make some Libertarians have wet 
> dreams it is a recipe for anarchy which is why no economy on Earth 
> operates this way.
>
> What is generally understood about Capitalism today is that the
> catch-22 of Capitalism is that if you have a market that is completely 
> controlled by the government, that is the opposite of Capitalism - but 
> if you have a market that has zero government controls it immediately 
> devolves into a set of monopolies which are also the opposite of 
> Capitalism.
>
> In short, the cost of real economic freedom is constant government 
> tinkering.
>
> I realize it's difficult to understand for a lot of people.  The Tea 
> Party in the United States is filled with people who don't understand 
> it.
>
> ARIN resource allocations are as close to Capitalism today as we are 
> going to get.  Once the transfer market was approved, that ended the 
> last vestige of authoritarian control by ARIN.
>
> The needs testing is far less intrusive than government controls on 
> automobiles, yet nobody would argue today the US does not have 
> competition in the automobile market.
>
> Ted
>
> On 12/19/2014 3:59 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>> I'm not being ignorant I am trying to get to bottom of the 
>> discussion.  I wish ARINs resources were issued by ARIN in a 
>> capitalistic manner.  Then as long as an Org is willing to pay the 
>> going rate resources could be acquired guaranteed as long as there 
>> are sellers.  There is no needs testing in that model just supply and 
>> demand and the ability to pay.  How do we change to the Capitalistic 
>> model from what we got now?
>>
>> 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 Ted Mittelstaedt
>> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 11:23 AM To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>>
>> First point here Steven is you have completely ignored and failed to 
>> respond to my first comment regarding why ARIN is the way it is
>> - because it exists in a capitalistic society - because you have no 
>> answer for that.
>>
>> I do not really believe for a second that you really want an honest 
>> debate on this issue.  What you are doing is sitting back and cherry 
>> picking weak arguments to respond to, and ignoring strong ones.  So I 
>> am not going to waste much more time with you on this.
>>
>> But I will say that your comment:
>>
>> " If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that really make it 
>> OK to start denying small Orgs .com domain name requests?"
>>
>> is one of the most ignorant I've seen on this list in quite a while.
>>
>> The DNS system exists to make IP addresses that are hard to remember, 
>> replaced by domain names that are easy to remember.  The average 
>> English speaking adult knows about 50,000 English words.
>> There's over 100 million .com domain names registered at this point.  
>> We have far and away exceeded the number of English .com one word 
>> domain names that an average person would know.
>>
>> Therefore we have long ago "run out" of .com domain names.  Oh sure, 
>> you can still register new .com domain names that are nonsense like 
>> fdgcjghhgeafvrar.com or you can make up elaborate long sentences like 
>> thisismynewdomainanemisntitkewel.com and register those names, but 
>> neither of those meets the bar of being an easy to remember name.  
>> They are, in fact, harder to remember than the IP addresses that they 
>> are supposed to make "easy to remember"
>>
>> There
>>
>> On 12/18/2014 9:15 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>> Thanks for your comments!  Actually the total number of possible 
>>> .com permutations is limited too.  IPv4 addresses and .com domain 
>>> names are both just Internet resources that Internet users need to 
>>> use the Internet.  Obviously there are less IPv4 addresses than .com 
>>> combinations, but IPv4 is still the only way to access most of the 
>>> Internet.  While ARIN has resources to allocate - I'm absolutely 
>>> fine limiting the size of an allocation to match the size of an Org 
>>> and their network, but I'm not fine with denying an Org any 
>>> resources.
>>>
>>> Also IPv4 cannot somehow be saved by conservation.  Regardless of 
>>> any policy, ARIN will run out of IPv4 probably within the next year.  
>>> If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that really make it 
>>> OK to start denying small Orgs .com domain name requests?
>>>
>>> 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 Andrew Sullivan
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:59 AM To:
>>> arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 04:35:41PM +0000, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If it is not OK to deny the Minimum domain (available) name to an 
>>>> Org, then it isn?t OK to deny an Org the Minimum  IP allocation.  
>>>> They are both Internet resources.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The analogy seems faulty to me.  The number space is finite (and in 
>>> the case of v4, not very large).  The name space in any given 
>>> registry is admittedly not infinite, since (1) it's limited to 
>>> labels 63 octets long from the LDH repertoire and (2) useful 
>>> mnemonics are generally shorter than 63 octets and usually a 
>>> wordlike thing in some natural language.  There are, however, lots 
>>> of registries (more all the time! Thanks, ICANN!); and last I 
>>> checked neither info nor biz was anything close to the size (or
>>> utility) of com, even though they've both been around since 2001 and 
>>> have rather similar registration rules.  So, there is an argument in 
>>> favour of tight rules for allocation of v4 numbers that is not 
>>> available in the name case.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> A
>>>
>>> -- Andrew Sullivan ajs at anvilwalrusden.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.
>>> _______________________________________________ PPML You are 
>>> receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public 
>>> Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage 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  Tue Dec 23 17:20:02 2014
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 22:20:02 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <EDE6239A5447704C9889F863709AAA190A9A283D@EXCH2.charlotte.lan>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-net
	works.com><0489025E-2057-4AA4-9CE7-6AA32F3EEB0E@delong.com><5B9E90747FA29	7
	4	D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52AD72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><20141218165833
	.G	C33386@mx1.yitter.info><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A52B2B9@ENI-M
	AIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<549450E6.2010009@ipinc.net><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI
	-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><54953C9D.1050303@ipinc.net><5B9E90747FA2974D91A
	54FCFA1B8AD12016A5671BF@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><54989AB5.2070504@ipi
	nc.net><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A57A790@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<EDE6239A5447704C9889F863709AAA190A9A283D@EXCH2.charlotte.lan>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A57AD20@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

My premise was that the ARIN region needs to implement something similar to RIPE-604. Whether you agree the equivalent of RIPE-604 is good for the ARIN region or not, it is not a ridiculous discussion. 

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: Mike Winters [mailto:mwinters at edwardrose.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 5:15 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness

This whole discussion is ridiculous.

Why are you arguing about a fix and what needs to be changed when you have not clearly defined the problem let alone gotten any consensus that there is a problem that needs fixing?  All I have seen are vague claims and/or statements.  Your premise seems to be that anyone that wants something should be able to get it no questions asked.  To me, that is like saying that we should allow children to drive vehicles (maybe limit them to a compact car).  After all, the legal driving age is just an arbitrary number defined by a community.

I think if you are serious about your cause, you need to go back to the beginning and clearly and concisely state what specifically the perceived problem is, why it is a problem, and why needs testing should be eliminated.  There are many intelligent people on this list and the better they understand what you think is broken, the more likely the community is to come up with a solution that works for everyone.

Mike Winters

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 3:23 PM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness

I find your continuing unprofessional tone towards me insulting and I would appreciate it if you would cease using it!  I didn't realize that this Community forum is only for folks who think exactly the same as you or the same as the vocal majority.  I find very little dissent here in this Community and it is from dissent that improvements are made.  Over the years I've seen an occasional dissenting opinion from an Org (usually small )and they immediately get shot down and I never see comments from them again so I assume they decide it isn't worth their time to continue commenting.  As you have noticed I have chosen to not go away and will continue participating and commenting as I'm told this community is the only place to effect policy change for ARIN allocations. 

As for your argument below. To say that the experience in RIPE has no bearing here is ridiculous.  They are not identical but they are similar. Certainly their experience is worth studying.  RIPE seems to be handling the challenge of serving many disparate countries from all sides of the ideological spectrum with their relaxed needs testing per ripe-604 reasonably well.  To dismiss their real world experiment in relaxed needs testing and what we can learn from it in this region out of hand is dismissing the opportunity to improve ARINs policies would not be good stewardship.  My opinion.  

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: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net] 
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 5:27 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness


Didn't your mommy ever teach you that just because Europe does something doesn't mean you need to do it also?

You cannot have it both ways.  ARIN exists as a regulatory body.  If it's usefulness as a regulatory body is over then call for it's dissolution.  Otherwise, it's going to do what it's supposed to do which is to prevent the IP number space from becoming hopelessly fragmented and router slots from ballooning.

Europe can get away with ripe-604 precisely because a) it has no Legacy
IPv4 and b) a lot of it has switched over to IPv6 already.  Plus there is a lot more regulation of NETWORKS in Europe.  Are you forgetting RIPE assigns IP addressing to Russia?  Are you going to argue that's now a free democracy with an open market now?  That just happens to have had the same dictat...I mean "president" for the last generation?  Please, stop before you embarrass yourself.

I would support a call for no needs testing on IPv6 allocations.  Of course once obtained then it would be the end users problem to get their upstream to route it.  But if more end users obtained IPv6 then it would increase the push on the retail networks (Frontier, RoadRunner, SBC
CenturyLink) to have their support folks at least learn about what it is!!!

But for IPv4?  I see no reason to turn it into a free for all.

Ted

On 12/21/2014 11:41 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> When the government meddles and plays favorites then capitalism stops 
> working.  At the low end of allocation policy it needs to be 
> capitalistic and all we need is the equivalent of the Anti-Trust laws 
> in policy to keep the big guys in check.  2014-14 moves in this 
> direction.  We certainly don't need Anti-Trust equivalent policies on 
> the low end of allocations.
>
> Some folks here respond to me as if I'm a heretic and my input is 
> radical and if implemented the world would somehow end.  I disagree.
> I have recently been advocating removing needs test just from the ARIN 
> Minimum block size allocation and my proposed 2014-18 would have done 
> that.  A proposal to do a whole lot more than I have proposed - not 
> only has been proposed in the RIPE region - but tweaked, improved, and 
> passed - as ripe-604.  Are the folks who proposed and voted to pass 
> ripe-604 heretics too?  I think not.  I think they realized that needs 
> testing couldn't save IPv4 and wanted to level the playing field so 
> they passed ripe-604. The world has not ended in Europe because of it.
>
> I think we need an ARIN equivalent of ripe-604 but I figured that I 
> would start at the low end where I think small Orgs would benefit just 
> trying to remove the needs testing for Orgs who just need the minimum 
> and don't need a minimum block more than once per year.  This would be 
> a pretty small change to current policy and if advocating for that 
> makes me a heretic then so be it!  My two cents.
>
> 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: Ted Mittelstaedt 
> [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net] Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 4:09 AM To:
> Steven Ryerse Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet 
> Fairness
>
>
> Your not talking about a Capitalistic model your talking about a 
> Laissez-faire model.  While this might make some Libertarians have wet 
> dreams it is a recipe for anarchy which is why no economy on Earth 
> operates this way.
>
> What is generally understood about Capitalism today is that the
> catch-22 of Capitalism is that if you have a market that is completely 
> controlled by the government, that is the opposite of Capitalism - but 
> if you have a market that has zero government controls it immediately 
> devolves into a set of monopolies which are also the opposite of 
> Capitalism.
>
> In short, the cost of real economic freedom is constant government 
> tinkering.
>
> I realize it's difficult to understand for a lot of people.  The Tea 
> Party in the United States is filled with people who don't understand 
> it.
>
> ARIN resource allocations are as close to Capitalism today as we are 
> going to get.  Once the transfer market was approved, that ended the 
> last vestige of authoritarian control by ARIN.
>
> The needs testing is far less intrusive than government controls on 
> automobiles, yet nobody would argue today the US does not have 
> competition in the automobile market.
>
> Ted
>
> On 12/19/2014 3:59 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>> I'm not being ignorant I am trying to get to bottom of the 
>> discussion.  I wish ARINs resources were issued by ARIN in a 
>> capitalistic manner.  Then as long as an Org is willing to pay the 
>> going rate resources could be acquired guaranteed as long as there 
>> are sellers.  There is no needs testing in that model just supply and 
>> demand and the ability to pay.  How do we change to the Capitalistic 
>> model from what we got now?
>>
>> 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 Ted Mittelstaedt
>> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 11:23 AM To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>>
>> First point here Steven is you have completely ignored and failed to 
>> respond to my first comment regarding why ARIN is the way it is
>> - because it exists in a capitalistic society - because you have no 
>> answer for that.
>>
>> I do not really believe for a second that you really want an honest 
>> debate on this issue.  What you are doing is sitting back and cherry 
>> picking weak arguments to respond to, and ignoring strong ones.  So I 
>> am not going to waste much more time with you on this.
>>
>> But I will say that your comment:
>>
>> " If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that really make it 
>> OK to start denying small Orgs .com domain name requests?"
>>
>> is one of the most ignorant I've seen on this list in quite a while.
>>
>> The DNS system exists to make IP addresses that are hard to remember, 
>> replaced by domain names that are easy to remember.  The average 
>> English speaking adult knows about 50,000 English words.
>> There's over 100 million .com domain names registered at this point.  
>> We have far and away exceeded the number of English .com one word 
>> domain names that an average person would know.
>>
>> Therefore we have long ago "run out" of .com domain names.  Oh sure, 
>> you can still register new .com domain names that are nonsense like 
>> fdgcjghhgeafvrar.com or you can make up elaborate long sentences like 
>> thisismynewdomainanemisntitkewel.com and register those names, but 
>> neither of those meets the bar of being an easy to remember name.  
>> They are, in fact, harder to remember than the IP addresses that they 
>> are supposed to make "easy to remember"
>>
>> There
>>
>> On 12/18/2014 9:15 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>> Thanks for your comments!  Actually the total number of possible 
>>> .com permutations is limited too.  IPv4 addresses and .com domain 
>>> names are both just Internet resources that Internet users need to 
>>> use the Internet.  Obviously there are less IPv4 addresses than .com 
>>> combinations, but IPv4 is still the only way to access most of the 
>>> Internet.  While ARIN has resources to allocate - I'm absolutely 
>>> fine limiting the size of an allocation to match the size of an Org 
>>> and their network, but I'm not fine with denying an Org any 
>>> resources.
>>>
>>> Also IPv4 cannot somehow be saved by conservation.  Regardless of 
>>> any policy, ARIN will run out of IPv4 probably within the next year.  
>>> If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that really make it 
>>> OK to start denying small Orgs .com domain name requests?
>>>
>>> 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 Andrew Sullivan
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:59 AM To:
>>> arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 04:35:41PM +0000, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If it is not OK to deny the Minimum domain (available) name to an 
>>>> Org, then it isn?t OK to deny an Org the Minimum  IP allocation.  
>>>> They are both Internet resources.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The analogy seems faulty to me.  The number space is finite (and in 
>>> the case of v4, not very large).  The name space in any given 
>>> registry is admittedly not infinite, since (1) it's limited to 
>>> labels 63 octets long from the LDH repertoire and (2) useful 
>>> mnemonics are generally shorter than 63 octets and usually a 
>>> wordlike thing in some natural language.  There are, however, lots 
>>> of registries (more all the time! Thanks, ICANN!); and last I 
>>> checked neither info nor biz was anything close to the size (or
>>> utility) of com, even though they've both been around since 2001 and 
>>> have rather similar registration rules.  So, there is an argument in 
>>> favour of tight rules for allocation of v4 numbers that is not 
>>> available in the name case.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> A
>>>
>>> -- Andrew Sullivan ajs at anvilwalrusden.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.
>>> _______________________________________________ PPML You are 
>>> receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public 
>>> Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage 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 rcarpen at network1.net  Tue Dec 23 17:28:49 2014
From: rcarpen at network1.net (Randy Carpenter)
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 17:28:49 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <1202814951.609899.1419373664915.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<54953C9D.1050303@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A5671BF@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<54989AB5.2070504@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A57A790@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<EDE6239A5447704C9889F863709AAA190A9A283D@EXCH2.charlotte.lan>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A57AD20@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <1449961006.609904.1419373729430.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net>


I think many of us are still wondering why. As stated, what is the problem that is trying to be solved here? All of this talk about fairness, but the solution seems to be to make it much more unfair by allowing anyone to get a large chunk of resources "just because," rather than allowing valid companies (particularly small ones) to get the resources they need.

I agree that post-runout the situation is significantly different. However, until that happens, why don't we find useful ways of utilizing the resources that are left in the free pool?

I have assisted several small ISPs get resources very recently. It has never been easier. There still has not been a reason stated for any of this discussion, other than vague statements of things that happened in the past, or that we should do the same as RIPE. Experience from other regions is certainly valuable information. However, that does not automatically mean we should mirror their policies. There are separate RIRs for a reason.

Again, I will say, that if you clearly articulate the problem you are trying to rectify by policy change, it will be much easier for everyone to have a real conversation about it.

thanks,
-Randy

----- On Dec 23, 2014, at 5:20 PM, Steven Ryerse SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com wrote:

> My premise was that the ARIN region needs to implement something similar to
> RIPE-604. Whether you agree the equivalent of RIPE-604 is good for the ARIN
> region or not, it is not a ridiculous discussion.
> 
> 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: Mike Winters [mailto:mwinters at edwardrose.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 5:15 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
> 
> This whole discussion is ridiculous.
> 
> Why are you arguing about a fix and what needs to be changed when you have not
> clearly defined the problem let alone gotten any consensus that there is a
> problem that needs fixing?  All I have seen are vague claims and/or statements.
> Your premise seems to be that anyone that wants something should be able to
> get it no questions asked.  To me, that is like saying that we should allow
> children to drive vehicles (maybe limit them to a compact car).  After all, the
> legal driving age is just an arbitrary number defined by a community.
> 
> I think if you are serious about your cause, you need to go back to the
> beginning and clearly and concisely state what specifically the perceived
> problem is, why it is a problem, and why needs testing should be eliminated.
> There are many intelligent people on this list and the better they understand
> what you think is broken, the more likely the community is to come up with a
> solution that works for everyone.
> 
> Mike Winters
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf
> Of Steven Ryerse
> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 3:23 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
> 
> I find your continuing unprofessional tone towards me insulting and I would
> appreciate it if you would cease using it!  I didn't realize that this
> Community forum is only for folks who think exactly the same as you or the same
> as the vocal majority.  I find very little dissent here in this Community and
> it is from dissent that improvements are made.  Over the years I've seen an
> occasional dissenting opinion from an Org (usually small )and they immediately
> get shot down and I never see comments from them again so I assume they decide
> it isn't worth their time to continue commenting.  As you have noticed I have
> chosen to not go away and will continue participating and commenting as I'm
> told this community is the only place to effect policy change for ARIN
> allocations.
> 
> As for your argument below. To say that the experience in RIPE has no bearing
> here is ridiculous.  They are not identical but they are similar. Certainly
> their experience is worth studying.  RIPE seems to be handling the challenge of
> serving many disparate countries from all sides of the ideological spectrum
> with their relaxed needs testing per ripe-604 reasonably well.  To dismiss
> their real world experiment in relaxed needs testing and what we can learn from
> it in this region out of hand is dismissing the opportunity to improve ARINs
> policies would not be good stewardship.  My opinion.
> 
> 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: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net]
> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 5:27 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
> 
> 
> Didn't your mommy ever teach you that just because Europe does something doesn't
> mean you need to do it also?
> 
> You cannot have it both ways.  ARIN exists as a regulatory body.  If it's
> usefulness as a regulatory body is over then call for it's dissolution.
> Otherwise, it's going to do what it's supposed to do which is to prevent the
> IP number space from becoming hopelessly fragmented and router slots from
> ballooning.
> 
> Europe can get away with ripe-604 precisely because a) it has no Legacy
> IPv4 and b) a lot of it has switched over to IPv6 already.  Plus there is a lot
> more regulation of NETWORKS in Europe.  Are you forgetting RIPE assigns IP
> addressing to Russia?  Are you going to argue that's now a free democracy with
> an open market now?  That just happens to have had the same dictat...I mean
> "president" for the last generation?  Please, stop before you embarrass
> yourself.
> 
> I would support a call for no needs testing on IPv6 allocations.  Of course once
> obtained then it would be the end users problem to get their upstream to route
> it.  But if more end users obtained IPv6 then it would increase the push on the
> retail networks (Frontier, RoadRunner, SBC
> CenturyLink) to have their support folks at least learn about what it is!!!
> 
> But for IPv4?  I see no reason to turn it into a free for all.
> 
> Ted
> 
> On 12/21/2014 11:41 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>> When the government meddles and plays favorites then capitalism stops
>> working.  At the low end of allocation policy it needs to be
>> capitalistic and all we need is the equivalent of the Anti-Trust laws
>> in policy to keep the big guys in check.  2014-14 moves in this
>> direction.  We certainly don't need Anti-Trust equivalent policies on
>> the low end of allocations.
>>
>> Some folks here respond to me as if I'm a heretic and my input is
>> radical and if implemented the world would somehow end.  I disagree.
>> I have recently been advocating removing needs test just from the ARIN
>> Minimum block size allocation and my proposed 2014-18 would have done
>> that.  A proposal to do a whole lot more than I have proposed - not
>> only has been proposed in the RIPE region - but tweaked, improved, and
>> passed - as ripe-604.  Are the folks who proposed and voted to pass
>> ripe-604 heretics too?  I think not.  I think they realized that needs
>> testing couldn't save IPv4 and wanted to level the playing field so
>> they passed ripe-604. The world has not ended in Europe because of it.
>>
>> I think we need an ARIN equivalent of ripe-604 but I figured that I
>> would start at the low end where I think small Orgs would benefit just
>> trying to remove the needs testing for Orgs who just need the minimum
>> and don't need a minimum block more than once per year.  This would be
>> a pretty small change to current policy and if advocating for that
>> makes me a heretic then so be it!  My two cents.
>>
>> 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: Ted Mittelstaedt
>> [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net] Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 4:09 AM To:
>> Steven Ryerse Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet
>> Fairness
>>
>>
>> Your not talking about a Capitalistic model your talking about a
>> Laissez-faire model.  While this might make some Libertarians have wet
>> dreams it is a recipe for anarchy which is why no economy on Earth
>> operates this way.
>>
>> What is generally understood about Capitalism today is that the
>> catch-22 of Capitalism is that if you have a market that is completely
>> controlled by the government, that is the opposite of Capitalism - but
>> if you have a market that has zero government controls it immediately
>> devolves into a set of monopolies which are also the opposite of
>> Capitalism.
>>
>> In short, the cost of real economic freedom is constant government
>> tinkering.
>>
>> I realize it's difficult to understand for a lot of people.  The Tea
>> Party in the United States is filled with people who don't understand
>> it.
>>
>> ARIN resource allocations are as close to Capitalism today as we are
>> going to get.  Once the transfer market was approved, that ended the
>> last vestige of authoritarian control by ARIN.
>>
>> The needs testing is far less intrusive than government controls on
>> automobiles, yet nobody would argue today the US does not have
>> competition in the automobile market.
>>
>> Ted
>>
>> On 12/19/2014 3:59 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>> I'm not being ignorant I am trying to get to bottom of the
>>> discussion.  I wish ARINs resources were issued by ARIN in a
>>> capitalistic manner.  Then as long as an Org is willing to pay the
>>> going rate resources could be acquired guaranteed as long as there
>>> are sellers.  There is no needs testing in that model just supply and
>>> demand and the ability to pay.  How do we change to the Capitalistic
>>> model from what we got now?
>>>
>>> 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 Ted Mittelstaedt
>>> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 11:23 AM To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>>>
>>> First point here Steven is you have completely ignored and failed to
>>> respond to my first comment regarding why ARIN is the way it is
>>> - because it exists in a capitalistic society - because you have no
>>> answer for that.
>>>
>>> I do not really believe for a second that you really want an honest
>>> debate on this issue.  What you are doing is sitting back and cherry
>>> picking weak arguments to respond to, and ignoring strong ones.  So I
>>> am not going to waste much more time with you on this.
>>>
>>> But I will say that your comment:
>>>
>>> " If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that really make it
>>> OK to start denying small Orgs .com domain name requests?"
>>>
>>> is one of the most ignorant I've seen on this list in quite a while.
>>>
>>> The DNS system exists to make IP addresses that are hard to remember,
>>> replaced by domain names that are easy to remember.  The average
>>> English speaking adult knows about 50,000 English words.
>>> There's over 100 million .com domain names registered at this point.
>>> We have far and away exceeded the number of English .com one word
>>> domain names that an average person would know.
>>>
>>> Therefore we have long ago "run out" of .com domain names.  Oh sure,
>>> you can still register new .com domain names that are nonsense like
>>> fdgcjghhgeafvrar.com or you can make up elaborate long sentences like
>>> thisismynewdomainanemisntitkewel.com and register those names, but
>>> neither of those meets the bar of being an easy to remember name.
>>> They are, in fact, harder to remember than the IP addresses that they
>>> are supposed to make "easy to remember"
>>>
>>> There
>>>
>>> On 12/18/2014 9:15 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>>> Thanks for your comments!  Actually the total number of possible
>>>> .com permutations is limited too.  IPv4 addresses and .com domain
>>>> names are both just Internet resources that Internet users need to
>>>> use the Internet.  Obviously there are less IPv4 addresses than .com
>>>> combinations, but IPv4 is still the only way to access most of the
>>>> Internet.  While ARIN has resources to allocate - I'm absolutely
>>>> fine limiting the size of an allocation to match the size of an Org
>>>> and their network, but I'm not fine with denying an Org any
>>>> resources.
>>>>
>>>> Also IPv4 cannot somehow be saved by conservation.  Regardless of
>>>> any policy, ARIN will run out of IPv4 probably within the next year.
>>>> If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that really make it
>>>> OK to start denying small Orgs .com domain name requests?
>>>>
>>>> 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 Andrew Sullivan
>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:59 AM To:
>>>> arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 04:35:41PM +0000, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> If it is not OK to deny the Minimum domain (available) name to an
>>>>> Org, then it isn?t OK to deny an Org the Minimum  IP allocation.
>>>>> They are both Internet resources.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The analogy seems faulty to me.  The number space is finite (and in
>>>> the case of v4, not very large).  The name space in any given
>>>> registry is admittedly not infinite, since (1) it's limited to
>>>> labels 63 octets long from the LDH repertoire and (2) useful
>>>> mnemonics are generally shorter than 63 octets and usually a
>>>> wordlike thing in some natural language.  There are, however, lots
>>>> of registries (more all the time! Thanks, ICANN!); and last I
>>>> checked neither info nor biz was anything close to the size (or
>>>> utility) of com, even though they've both been around since 2001 and
>>>> have rather similar registration rules.  So, there is an argument in
>>>> favour of tight rules for allocation of v4 numbers that is not
>>>> available in the name case.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> A
>>>>
>>>> -- Andrew Sullivan ajs at anvilwalrusden.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.
>>>> _______________________________________________ PPML You are
>>>> receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public
>>>> Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage 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 farmer at umn.edu  Tue Dec 23 17:57:57 2014
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 16:57:57 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool
 Size per Section 4.4
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5NwkTRg-4mq8OPx_eHWxzOr2HpxwUpPwAFddsXc3aW3DA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5474E803.9020504@arin.net> <54989FCA.2020403@umn.edu>
	<CAMDXq5NwkTRg-4mq8OPx_eHWxzOr2HpxwUpPwAFddsXc3aW3DA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5499F375.7050409@umn.edu>

On 12/23/14, 14:50 , Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 5:48 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu
> <mailto:farmer at umn.edu>> wrote:
>
>     So far there has been very little discussion on this policy.
>
>
> Not really. I recall a huge thread previously that demonstrated much
> support. What's the hold up?

No hold up, the proposal was submitted a little more than week before 
ARIN 34. The AC Chair assigned shepherd, but there wasn't sufficient 
time to get it ready for the October AC meeting held at ARIN 34.  At the 
November conference call the AC accepted the proposal on to its docket, 
promoting it to Draft Policy, and it was posted to the list for discussion.

I went back and reviewed the thread, there was some support for the 
ideas that spawned the proposal, but no specific text was posted at that 
time.  Since the Draft Policy and the specific text was posted there has 
now been two statements of support and no opposition.

>     Therefore, as one of the AC shepherds for this policy I would like
>     to initiate some discussion of this policy.  Here are a few
>     questions for the ARIN community to think about and provide feedback on;
>
>     - The current CI reservation is for all CI not just IXPs, the
>     problem statement discusses growth primarily in the IXPs as
>     justification to expand the reservation.  Should we split off a
>     separate reservation pool for IXPs?  Or, keep the current common CI
>     pool?
>
> If you want to complicate this further, yes, let's do that. If not, are
> you suggesting that there still isn't a large enough reservation?
>
> I see some merit in your suggestion, but dragging this out beyond
> exhaustion doesn't sound like a wise idea. I'd go with a larger
> reservation if you are concerned and have data points.

I think /15 is probably big enough.  But, there is no guarantee that the 
/16 that will be added will be used for IXPs.  As shepherd, I'm just 
trying to make sure the community considers the issues.

>     - ARIN-2011-4 the policy that made the original CI reservation had a
>     Policy Term of 36 Months following implementation, but this was not
>     in the policy text itself and therefore did not get included in the
>     NRPM.
>
>     https://www.arin.net/policy/__proposals/2011_4.html
>     <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_4.html>
>
>     If applicable, this would have expired July 2014.  So, should there
>     be expiration date included in this policy text?  If there should be
>     no expiration date, should we explicitly note the removal of any
>     expiration date in the discussion of this policy?
>
> I was the author of that revision and the author or this one. That was
> based on a belief in 2011 that ARIN would have been long out of v4
> addresses and v6 adoption would be well underway. Expiry in retrospect
> seems unnecessary since dual stacking is likely to prevail in CI for
> quite some time to come. As it should.

Ok, then I think we should make that intent explicit, "regardless of the 
status of the ARIN-2011-4 Policy Term, this policy intentionally does 
not include an expiration date for the CI reservation."

>     - There was discussion of smaller and larger than /24 IXP
>     allocations, like /26 on the smaller side and that some very large
>     IXPs are starting to need as large as a /22.  Also discussed was,
>     sparse allocation for IXPs to allow expansion without renumbering.
>     Should this policy includes any changes along these lines?  Why or
>     why not?
>
> There's nothing that codifies that an CI prefix can not be routed so
> linkage to the minimum allocation makes sense.

So keep a /24 minimum?

>     - Should we try to get this to the PPC at NANOG 63 in San Antonio as
>     a Recommended Draft Policy?  Or should it wait go to the PPM at ARIN
>     35 in San Francisco as a Recommended Draft Policy?  What about ARIN
>     free pool run-out timing?
>
> Speaking as an Open-IX community (board) member http://www.open-ix.org/
> and referencing previous discussions here that pointed there as well,
> there is a substantial and demonstrated amount of support for this.
>
> San Antonio.

I'd be happy to work toward getting this to San Antonio as a Recommended 
Draft Policy.  However, the normal path would be Draft in San Antonio 
and then Recommended Draft in San Francisco.  So, to justify 
accelerating this policy we need clear and strong support from the 
community for this policy.  Lukewarm support with no opposition is not 
sufficient to take this to San Antonio as a Recommended Draft Policy in 
my opinion as the shepherd.

>     Do you support the policy as written, if not are there any changes
>     that could be made that would allow you to support the policy?
>
> As written.
>
> Best,
>
> -M<

Thanks.


-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================


From hannigan at gmail.com  Tue Dec 23 18:08:33 2014
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 18:08:33 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool
 Size per Section 4.4
In-Reply-To: <5499F375.7050409@umn.edu>
References: <5474E803.9020504@arin.net> <54989FCA.2020403@umn.edu>
	<CAMDXq5NwkTRg-4mq8OPx_eHWxzOr2HpxwUpPwAFddsXc3aW3DA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5499F375.7050409@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5N26R3tEpy6Bq5444jgCPKc=TEhh+YLAE_dkGBZ9HUFaQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 5:57 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:

> On 12/23/14, 14:50 , Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 5:48 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu
>> <mailto:farmer at umn.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>     So far there has been very little discussion on this policy.
>>
>>
>> Not really. I recall a huge thread previously that demonstrated much
>> support. What's the hold up?
>>
>
> No hold up, the proposal was submitted a little more than week before ARIN
> 34. The AC Chair assigned shepherd, but there wasn't sufficient time to get
> it ready for the October AC meeting held at ARIN 34.  At the November
> conference call the AC accepted the proposal on to its docket, promoting it
> to Draft Policy, and it was posted to the list for discussion.
>
> I went back and reviewed the thread, there was some support for the ideas
> that spawned the proposal, but no specific text was posted at that time.
> Since the Draft Policy and the specific text was posted there has now been
> two statements of support and no opposition.
>
>
Its fair to expect that the OIX commentary, documented in full public view,
should count as support. That would be more than two.



>      Therefore, as one of the AC shepherds for this policy I would like
>>     to initiate some discussion of this policy.  Here are a few
>>     questions for the ARIN community to think about and provide feedback
>> on;
>>
>>     - The current CI reservation is for all CI not just IXPs, the
>>     problem statement discusses growth primarily in the IXPs as
>>     justification to expand the reservation.  Should we split off a
>>     separate reservation pool for IXPs?  Or, keep the current common CI
>>     pool?
>>
>> If you want to complicate this further, yes, let's do that. If not, are
>> you suggesting that there still isn't a large enough reservation?
>>
>> I see some merit in your suggestion, but dragging this out beyond
>> exhaustion doesn't sound like a wise idea. I'd go with a larger
>> reservation if you are concerned and have data points.
>>
>
> I think /15 is probably big enough.  But, there is no guarantee that the
> /16 that will be added will be used for IXPs.  As shepherd, I'm just trying
> to make sure the community considers the issues.
>
>
I agree, I think the /15 is big enough. With the change to three as the
minimum requirement and the addition, that at least solidifies some CI
addressing for IXPs. If we have to adjust again, it'll be doable with the
reservation in place. I think its big enough. For now.




>      - ARIN-2011-4 the policy that made the original CI reservation had a
>>     Policy Term of 36 Months following implementation, but this was not
>>     in the policy text itself and therefore did not get included in the
>>     NRPM.
>>
>>     https://www.arin.net/policy/__proposals/2011_4.html
>>     <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_4.html>
>>
>>     If applicable, this would have expired July 2014.  So, should there
>>     be expiration date included in this policy text?  If there should be
>>     no expiration date, should we explicitly note the removal of any
>>     expiration date in the discussion of this policy?
>>
>> I was the author of that revision and the author or this one. That was
>> based on a belief in 2011 that ARIN would have been long out of v4
>> addresses and v6 adoption would be well underway. Expiry in retrospect
>> seems unnecessary since dual stacking is likely to prevail in CI for
>> quite some time to come. As it should.
>>
>
> Ok, then I think we should make that intent explicit, "regardless of the
> status of the ARIN-2011-4 Policy Term, this policy intentionally does not
> include an expiration date for the CI reservation."
>
>
I believe I specified "non" when I submitted the template so I'd argue that
its part of the modification.

     - There was discussion of smaller and larger than /24 IXP
>>     allocations, like /26 on the smaller side and that some very large
>>     IXPs are starting to need as large as a /22.  Also discussed was,
>>     sparse allocation for IXPs to allow expansion without renumbering.
>>     Should this policy includes any changes along these lines?  Why or
>>     why not?
>>
>> There's nothing that codifies that an CI prefix can not be routed so
>> linkage to the minimum allocation makes sense.
>>
>
> So keep a /24 minimum?
>

If later "we" managed to codify a variable MAU and hten have policy
reference that, it would be a reasonable approach. Until then, /24 is "ok".



>      - Should we try to get this to the PPC at NANOG 63 in San Antonio as
>>     a Recommended Draft Policy?  Or should it wait go to the PPM at ARIN
>>     35 in San Francisco as a Recommended Draft Policy?  What about ARIN
>>     free pool run-out timing?
>>
>> Speaking as an Open-IX community (board) member http://www.open-ix.org/
>> and referencing previous discussions here that pointed there as well,
>> there is a substantial and demonstrated amount of support for this.
>>
>> San Antonio.
>>
>
> I'd be happy to work toward getting this to San Antonio as a Recommended
> Draft Policy.  However, the normal path would be Draft in San Antonio and
> then Recommended Draft in San Francisco.  So, to justify accelerating this
> policy we need clear and strong support from the community for this
> policy.  Lukewarm support with no opposition is not sufficient to take this
> to San Antonio as a Recommended Draft Policy in my opinion as the shepherd.
>

I'm happy to cross post and invade ppml rms style with OIX. That doesn't
seem necessary based on the transparency of our discussions.



>
>      Do you support the policy as written, if not are there any changes
>>     that could be made that would allow you to support the policy?
>>
>> As written.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> -M<
>>
>
> Thanks.
>
>

:-) You're welcome.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141223/9ef84f66/attachment.htm>

From farmer at umn.edu  Tue Dec 23 18:21:18 2014
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 17:21:18 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool
 Size per Section 4.4
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5N26R3tEpy6Bq5444jgCPKc=TEhh+YLAE_dkGBZ9HUFaQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5474E803.9020504@arin.net> <54989FCA.2020403@umn.edu>
	<CAMDXq5NwkTRg-4mq8OPx_eHWxzOr2HpxwUpPwAFddsXc3aW3DA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5499F375.7050409@umn.edu>
	<CAMDXq5N26R3tEpy6Bq5444jgCPKc=TEhh+YLAE_dkGBZ9HUFaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5499F8EE.4060901@umn.edu>

On 12/23/14, 17:08 , Martin Hannigan wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 5:57 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu
> <mailto:farmer at umn.edu>> wrote:
...
>     I went back and reviewed the thread, there was some support for the
>     ideas that spawned the proposal, but no specific text was posted at
>     that time.  Since the Draft Policy and the specific text was posted
>     there has now been two statements of support and no opposition.
>
> Its fair to expect that the OIX commentary, documented in full public
> view, should count as support. That would be more than two.
...
>     I'd be happy to work toward getting this to San Antonio as a
>     Recommended Draft Policy.  However, the normal path would be Draft
>     in San Antonio and then Recommended Draft in San Francisco.  So, to
>     justify accelerating this policy we need clear and strong support
>     from the community for this policy.  Lukewarm support with no
>     opposition is not sufficient to take this to San Antonio as a
>     Recommended Draft Policy in my opinion as the shepherd.
>
> I'm happy to cross post and invade ppml rms style with OIX. That doesn't
> seem necessary based on the transparency of our discussions.

Personally, I'm happy to consider OIX commentary.  Would you please 
provide me and PPML a link for the archives?  Maybe a pointer to the 
appropriate threads too.

Thanks

-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================


From springer at inlandnet.com  Tue Dec 23 21:58:13 2014
From: springer at inlandnet.com (John Springer)
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 18:58:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was  Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <1449961006.609904.1419373729430.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<54953C9D.1050303@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A5671BF@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<54989AB5.2070504@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A57A790@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<EDE6239A5447704C9889F863709AAA190A9A283D@EXCH2.charlotte.lan>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A57AD20@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<1449961006.609904.1419373729430.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1412231454340.55903@mail.inlandnet.com>

Hi PPML and Randy and Steven,

Subject change and sorry for the top post.

WRT ARIN Draft Policy 2014-14, Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 
Transfers, this started out as "ARIN-prop-204 Removing Needs Test from 
Small IPv4 Transfers on 16 April 2014. At the 15 May 2014 ARIN AC 
teleconference, the motion to move the proposal to a Draft Policy was 
passed unanimously. Prerequisite to this action was agreement among the AC 
present that, inter alia, the proposal had a clear problem statement.
It might still.

So whatever other failings 2014-14 may have, a unclear problem statement 
would seem, at least by the AC's definition, not to be one of them.

As far as the why, ARIN is a community of often polarized interests. The 
majority does not, and equally importantly, should not, automatically get 
to quash all things it does not agree with. Obversely, minorities, even 
despised ones, have the right to work for incremental change in their 
interests and receive a fair hearing. This would appear to include the 
right to rational discussion, even if irritation sometimes shows up.

The shepherd's job is made more difficult by a lot of this talking in 
code. Clearly this is a beloved behavior, so I won't say cut it out. But. 
In the case of 2014-14, I don't know if it is going to be enough to say 'I 
don't like pie', or 'I don't like pie because pie sucks', or 'I don't 
care. I am never going to like pie', or even 'I am so much smarter than 
you, that you don't even know pie'. Please, no one take this personally.

Shepherds are currently contemplating rewriting 2014-14 to accomodate 
objections even though some objections more resemble the above. I am not 
completely optimistic about either the rectitude or the efficacy of this 
move, but am thinking and working on it.

If anyone might care to comment on the following three choices, I 
would be grateful:

1)	Abandon 2014-14 entirely because... (Don't say pie.)
2)	This part of it is clearly wrong because..., do this to fix it.
3)	Advance it. I haven't heard any convincing opposition.

TIA and in reverse to everyone for the comments and the courtesies.

John Springer


On Tue, 23 Dec 2014, Randy Carpenter wrote:

>
> I think many of us are still wondering why. As stated, what is the problem that is trying to be solved here? All of this talk about fairness, but the solution seems to be to make it much more unfair by allowing anyone to get a large chunk of resources "just because," rather than allowing valid companies (particularly small ones) to get the resources they need.
>
> I agree that post-runout the situation is significantly different. However, until that happens, why don't we find useful ways of utilizing the resources that are left in the free pool?
>
> I have assisted several small ISPs get resources very recently. It has never been easier. There still has not been a reason stated for any of this discussion, other than vague statements of things that happened in the past, or that we should do the same as RIPE. Experience from other regions is certainly valuable information. However, that does not automatically mean we should mirror their policies. There are separate RIRs for a reason.
>
> Again, I will say, that if you clearly articulate the problem you are trying to rectify by policy change, it will be much easier for everyone to have a real conversation about it.
>
> thanks,
> -Randy
>
> ----- On Dec 23, 2014, at 5:20 PM, Steven Ryerse SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com wrote:
>
>> My premise was that the ARIN region needs to implement something similar to
>> RIPE-604. Whether you agree the equivalent of RIPE-604 is good for the ARIN
>> region or not, it is not a ridiculous discussion.
>>
>> 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: Mike Winters [mailto:mwinters at edwardrose.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 5:15 PM
>> To: Steven Ryerse
>> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>>
>> This whole discussion is ridiculous.
>>
>> Why are you arguing about a fix and what needs to be changed when you have not
>> clearly defined the problem let alone gotten any consensus that there is a
>> problem that needs fixing?  All I have seen are vague claims and/or statements.
>> Your premise seems to be that anyone that wants something should be able to
>> get it no questions asked.  To me, that is like saying that we should allow
>> children to drive vehicles (maybe limit them to a compact car).  After all, the
>> legal driving age is just an arbitrary number defined by a community.
>>
>> I think if you are serious about your cause, you need to go back to the
>> beginning and clearly and concisely state what specifically the perceived
>> problem is, why it is a problem, and why needs testing should be eliminated.
>> There are many intelligent people on this list and the better they understand
>> what you think is broken, the more likely the community is to come up with a
>> solution that works for everyone.
>>
>> Mike Winters
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf
>> Of Steven Ryerse
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 3:23 PM
>> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>>
>> I find your continuing unprofessional tone towards me insulting and I would
>> appreciate it if you would cease using it!  I didn't realize that this
>> Community forum is only for folks who think exactly the same as you or the same
>> as the vocal majority.  I find very little dissent here in this Community and
>> it is from dissent that improvements are made.  Over the years I've seen an
>> occasional dissenting opinion from an Org (usually small )and they immediately
>> get shot down and I never see comments from them again so I assume they decide
>> it isn't worth their time to continue commenting.  As you have noticed I have
>> chosen to not go away and will continue participating and commenting as I'm
>> told this community is the only place to effect policy change for ARIN
>> allocations.
>>
>> As for your argument below. To say that the experience in RIPE has no bearing
>> here is ridiculous.  They are not identical but they are similar. Certainly
>> their experience is worth studying.  RIPE seems to be handling the challenge of
>> serving many disparate countries from all sides of the ideological spectrum
>> with their relaxed needs testing per ripe-604 reasonably well.  To dismiss
>> their real world experiment in relaxed needs testing and what we can learn from
>> it in this region out of hand is dismissing the opportunity to improve ARINs
>> policies would not be good stewardship.  My opinion.
>>
>> 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: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net]
>> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 5:27 PM
>> To: Steven Ryerse
>> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>>
>>
>> Didn't your mommy ever teach you that just because Europe does something doesn't
>> mean you need to do it also?
>>
>> You cannot have it both ways.  ARIN exists as a regulatory body.  If it's
>> usefulness as a regulatory body is over then call for it's dissolution.
>> Otherwise, it's going to do what it's supposed to do which is to prevent the
>> IP number space from becoming hopelessly fragmented and router slots from
>> ballooning.
>>
>> Europe can get away with ripe-604 precisely because a) it has no Legacy
>> IPv4 and b) a lot of it has switched over to IPv6 already.  Plus there is a lot
>> more regulation of NETWORKS in Europe.  Are you forgetting RIPE assigns IP
>> addressing to Russia?  Are you going to argue that's now a free democracy with
>> an open market now?  That just happens to have had the same dictat...I mean
>> "president" for the last generation?  Please, stop before you embarrass
>> yourself.
>>
>> I would support a call for no needs testing on IPv6 allocations.  Of course once
>> obtained then it would be the end users problem to get their upstream to route
>> it.  But if more end users obtained IPv6 then it would increase the push on the
>> retail networks (Frontier, RoadRunner, SBC
>> CenturyLink) to have their support folks at least learn about what it is!!!
>>
>> But for IPv4?  I see no reason to turn it into a free for all.
>>
>> Ted
>>
>> On 12/21/2014 11:41 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>> When the government meddles and plays favorites then capitalism stops
>>> working.  At the low end of allocation policy it needs to be
>>> capitalistic and all we need is the equivalent of the Anti-Trust laws
>>> in policy to keep the big guys in check.  2014-14 moves in this
>>> direction.  We certainly don't need Anti-Trust equivalent policies on
>>> the low end of allocations.
>>>
>>> Some folks here respond to me as if I'm a heretic and my input is
>>> radical and if implemented the world would somehow end.  I disagree.
>>> I have recently been advocating removing needs test just from the ARIN
>>> Minimum block size allocation and my proposed 2014-18 would have done
>>> that.  A proposal to do a whole lot more than I have proposed - not
>>> only has been proposed in the RIPE region - but tweaked, improved, and
>>> passed - as ripe-604.  Are the folks who proposed and voted to pass
>>> ripe-604 heretics too?  I think not.  I think they realized that needs
>>> testing couldn't save IPv4 and wanted to level the playing field so
>>> they passed ripe-604. The world has not ended in Europe because of it.
>>>
>>> I think we need an ARIN equivalent of ripe-604 but I figured that I
>>> would start at the low end where I think small Orgs would benefit just
>>> trying to remove the needs testing for Orgs who just need the minimum
>>> and don't need a minimum block more than once per year.  This would be
>>> a pretty small change to current policy and if advocating for that
>>> makes me a heretic then so be it!  My two cents.
>>>
>>> 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: Ted Mittelstaedt
>>> [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net] Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 4:09 AM To:
>>> Steven Ryerse Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet
>>> Fairness
>>>
>>>
>>> Your not talking about a Capitalistic model your talking about a
>>> Laissez-faire model.  While this might make some Libertarians have wet
>>> dreams it is a recipe for anarchy which is why no economy on Earth
>>> operates this way.
>>>
>>> What is generally understood about Capitalism today is that the
>>> catch-22 of Capitalism is that if you have a market that is completely
>>> controlled by the government, that is the opposite of Capitalism - but
>>> if you have a market that has zero government controls it immediately
>>> devolves into a set of monopolies which are also the opposite of
>>> Capitalism.
>>>
>>> In short, the cost of real economic freedom is constant government
>>> tinkering.
>>>
>>> I realize it's difficult to understand for a lot of people.  The Tea
>>> Party in the United States is filled with people who don't understand
>>> it.
>>>
>>> ARIN resource allocations are as close to Capitalism today as we are
>>> going to get.  Once the transfer market was approved, that ended the
>>> last vestige of authoritarian control by ARIN.
>>>
>>> The needs testing is far less intrusive than government controls on
>>> automobiles, yet nobody would argue today the US does not have
>>> competition in the automobile market.
>>>
>>> Ted
>>>
>>> On 12/19/2014 3:59 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>>> I'm not being ignorant I am trying to get to bottom of the
>>>> discussion.  I wish ARINs resources were issued by ARIN in a
>>>> capitalistic manner.  Then as long as an Org is willing to pay the
>>>> going rate resources could be acquired guaranteed as long as there
>>>> are sellers.  There is no needs testing in that model just supply and
>>>> demand and the ability to pay.  How do we change to the Capitalistic
>>>> model from what we got now?
>>>>
>>>> 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 Ted Mittelstaedt
>>>> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 11:23 AM To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>>>>
>>>> First point here Steven is you have completely ignored and failed to
>>>> respond to my first comment regarding why ARIN is the way it is
>>>> - because it exists in a capitalistic society - because you have no
>>>> answer for that.
>>>>
>>>> I do not really believe for a second that you really want an honest
>>>> debate on this issue.  What you are doing is sitting back and cherry
>>>> picking weak arguments to respond to, and ignoring strong ones.  So I
>>>> am not going to waste much more time with you on this.
>>>>
>>>> But I will say that your comment:
>>>>
>>>> " If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that really make it
>>>> OK to start denying small Orgs .com domain name requests?"
>>>>
>>>> is one of the most ignorant I've seen on this list in quite a while.
>>>>
>>>> The DNS system exists to make IP addresses that are hard to remember,
>>>> replaced by domain names that are easy to remember.  The average
>>>> English speaking adult knows about 50,000 English words.
>>>> There's over 100 million .com domain names registered at this point.
>>>> We have far and away exceeded the number of English .com one word
>>>> domain names that an average person would know.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore we have long ago "run out" of .com domain names.  Oh sure,
>>>> you can still register new .com domain names that are nonsense like
>>>> fdgcjghhgeafvrar.com or you can make up elaborate long sentences like
>>>> thisismynewdomainanemisntitkewel.com and register those names, but
>>>> neither of those meets the bar of being an easy to remember name.
>>>> They are, in fact, harder to remember than the IP addresses that they
>>>> are supposed to make "easy to remember"
>>>>
>>>> There
>>>>
>>>> On 12/18/2014 9:15 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>>>> Thanks for your comments!  Actually the total number of possible
>>>>> .com permutations is limited too.  IPv4 addresses and .com domain
>>>>> names are both just Internet resources that Internet users need to
>>>>> use the Internet.  Obviously there are less IPv4 addresses than .com
>>>>> combinations, but IPv4 is still the only way to access most of the
>>>>> Internet.  While ARIN has resources to allocate - I'm absolutely
>>>>> fine limiting the size of an allocation to match the size of an Org
>>>>> and their network, but I'm not fine with denying an Org any
>>>>> resources.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also IPv4 cannot somehow be saved by conservation.  Regardless of
>>>>> any policy, ARIN will run out of IPv4 probably within the next year.
>>>>> If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that really make it
>>>>> OK to start denying small Orgs .com domain name requests?
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 Andrew Sullivan
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:59 AM To:
>>>>> arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 04:35:41PM +0000, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it is not OK to deny the Minimum domain (available) name to an
>>>>>> Org, then it isn?t OK to deny an Org the Minimum  IP allocation.
>>>>>> They are both Internet resources.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The analogy seems faulty to me.  The number space is finite (and in
>>>>> the case of v4, not very large).  The name space in any given
>>>>> registry is admittedly not infinite, since (1) it's limited to
>>>>> labels 63 octets long from the LDH repertoire and (2) useful
>>>>> mnemonics are generally shorter than 63 octets and usually a
>>>>> wordlike thing in some natural language.  There are, however, lots
>>>>> of registries (more all the time! Thanks, ICANN!); and last I
>>>>> checked neither info nor biz was anything close to the size (or
>>>>> utility) of com, even though they've both been around since 2001 and
>>>>> have rather similar registration rules.  So, there is an argument in
>>>>> favour of tight rules for allocation of v4 numbers that is not
>>>>> available in the name case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> A
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Andrew Sullivan ajs at anvilwalrusden.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.
>>>>> _______________________________________________ PPML You are
>>>>> receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public
>>>>> Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage 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.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage 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 scottleibrand at gmail.com  Tue Dec 23 23:22:55 2014
From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 04:22:55 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool
 Size per Section 4.4
References: <5474E803.9020504@arin.net> <54989FCA.2020403@umn.edu>
	<CAMDXq5NwkTRg-4mq8OPx_eHWxzOr2HpxwUpPwAFddsXc3aW3DA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5499F375.7050409@umn.edu>
	<CAMDXq5N26R3tEpy6Bq5444jgCPKc=TEhh+YLAE_dkGBZ9HUFaQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5499F8EE.4060901@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <CAGkMwz4Dc2UVK-eONgYykM__JgvzGpSM18BOuV_e_rea3CPjxw@mail.gmail.com>

For future comments from OIX participants, it will also be helpful to
include PPML, so any discussion of policy pros and cons can occur directly,
and there isn't any further unnecessary back and forth (and potentially
delays) due to inconsistent assumptions. (I saw a fair bit of that watching
the two independent discussions so far.)

-Scott
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 1:22 PM David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:

> On 12/23/14, 17:08 , Martin Hannigan wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 5:57 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu
> > <mailto:farmer at umn.edu>> wrote:
> ...
> >     I went back and reviewed the thread, there was some support for the
> >     ideas that spawned the proposal, but no specific text was posted at
> >     that time.  Since the Draft Policy and the specific text was posted
> >     there has now been two statements of support and no opposition.
> >
> > Its fair to expect that the OIX commentary, documented in full public
> > view, should count as support. That would be more than two.
> ...
> >     I'd be happy to work toward getting this to San Antonio as a
> >     Recommended Draft Policy.  However, the normal path would be Draft
> >     in San Antonio and then Recommended Draft in San Francisco.  So, to
> >     justify accelerating this policy we need clear and strong support
> >     from the community for this policy.  Lukewarm support with no
> >     opposition is not sufficient to take this to San Antonio as a
> >     Recommended Draft Policy in my opinion as the shepherd.
> >
> > I'm happy to cross post and invade ppml rms style with OIX. That doesn't
> > seem necessary based on the transparency of our discussions.
>
> Personally, I'm happy to consider OIX commentary.  Would you please
> provide me and PPML a link for the archives?  Maybe a pointer to the
> appropriate threads too.
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> ================================================
> David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
> ================================================
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141224/00bc5115/attachment.htm>

From JOHN at egh.com  Wed Dec 24 01:00:48 2014
From: JOHN at egh.com (John Santos)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 01:00:48 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1412231454340.55903@mail.inlandnet.com>
Message-ID: <1141224003801.567A-100000@joonya.egh.com>


Oppose 2014-14

1) /16 is not "small"
2) The problem the proposal purports to solve hasn't actually been
   demonstrated.  "ARIN staff [...] is spending scarce staff time on needs 
   testing of small transfers."  Obviously, doing the necessary checking
   requires staff time, but is it a significant amount?  Is it taking much
   longer than it used to?  Is it costing ARIN a lot of money in staff
   wages and overhead to do these assessments, or is it lost in the noise?
3) This proposal not only eliminates needs testing for qualifying transfers, 
   but also removes the requirement for the recipient to sign an RSA.
4) Rearranging the IPv4 deck chairs
5) Pie


On Tue, 23 Dec 2014, John Springer wrote:

> Hi PPML and Randy and Steven,
> 
> Subject change and sorry for the top post.
> 
> WRT ARIN Draft Policy 2014-14, Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 
> Transfers, this started out as "ARIN-prop-204 Removing Needs Test from 
> Small IPv4 Transfers on 16 April 2014. At the 15 May 2014 ARIN AC 
> teleconference, the motion to move the proposal to a Draft Policy was 
> passed unanimously. Prerequisite to this action was agreement among the AC 
> present that, inter alia, the proposal had a clear problem statement.
> It might still.
> 
> So whatever other failings 2014-14 may have, a unclear problem statement 
> would seem, at least by the AC's definition, not to be one of them.
> 
> As far as the why, ARIN is a community of often polarized interests. The 
> majority does not, and equally importantly, should not, automatically get 
> to quash all things it does not agree with. Obversely, minorities, even 
> despised ones, have the right to work for incremental change in their 
> interests and receive a fair hearing. This would appear to include the 
> right to rational discussion, even if irritation sometimes shows up.
> 
> The shepherd's job is made more difficult by a lot of this talking in 
> code. Clearly this is a beloved behavior, so I won't say cut it out. But. 
> In the case of 2014-14, I don't know if it is going to be enough to say 'I 
> don't like pie', or 'I don't like pie because pie sucks', or 'I don't 
> care. I am never going to like pie', or even 'I am so much smarter than 
> you, that you don't even know pie'. Please, no one take this personally.
> 
> Shepherds are currently contemplating rewriting 2014-14 to accomodate 
> objections even though some objections more resemble the above. I am not 
> completely optimistic about either the rectitude or the efficacy of this 
> move, but am thinking and working on it.
> 
> If anyone might care to comment on the following three choices, I 
> would be grateful:
> 
> 1)	Abandon 2014-14 entirely because... (Don't say pie.)
> 2)	This part of it is clearly wrong because..., do this to fix it.
> 3)	Advance it. I haven't heard any convincing opposition.
> 
> TIA and in reverse to everyone for the comments and the courtesies.
> 
> John Springer


-- 
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539

From info at arin.net  Wed Dec 24 11:20:41 2014
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 11:20:41 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2014
Message-ID: <549AE7D9.1060103@arin.net>

In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN 
Advisory Council (AC) met on 18 December 2014.

Having found the following Draft Policies to be fully developed and 
meeting ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy, the AC 
recommended them for adoption; they will be posted as Recommended Draft 
Polices for discussion:

   Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of Region Use
   Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change Utilization Requirements from 
last-allocation to total-aggregate
   Draft Policy ARIN-2014-19: New MDN Allocation Based on Past Utilization

The AC is continuing to work on the following:

   Draft Policy ARIN-2014-6: Remove 7.1 [Maintaining IN-ADDRs]
   Draft Policy ARIN-2014-14: Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers
   Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4
   Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10

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 info at arin.net  Wed Dec 24 11:21:19 2014
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 11:21:19 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of Region Use
Message-ID: <549AE7FF.6090108@arin.net>

Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1
Out of Region Use

On 18 December 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) recommended
ARIN-2014-1 for adoption, making it a Recommended Draft Policy.

ARIN-2014-1 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_1.html

You are encouraged to discuss Draft Policy 2014-1 on the PPML prior to
the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Consultation at NANOG 63 in San Antonio 
in February 2015. Both the discussion on the list and at the meeting 
will be used by the ARIN Advisory Council to determine the 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,

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


## * ##


Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1
Out of Region Use

Date: 24 December 2014

AC's assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number 
Resource Policy:

This proposal enables fair and impartial number resource administration 
by clearing up a significant ambiguity in policy and practice. This 
proposal is technically sound, as no technical issues are raised by 
permitting a single network operator to use resources from one RIR in 
any region. This proposal is supported by the community. Permitting out 
of region use allows operators with facilities spanning more than one 
region to obtain resources in the most direct and convenient way, and to 
utilize their numbers more flexibly and efficiently. The concerns of law 
enforcement and staff raised by the first staff and legal assessment 
have been mitigated by the latest amendments.

Problem statement:

Current policy neither clearly forbids nor clearly permits out or region 
use of ARIN registered resources. This has created confusion and 
controversy within the ARIN community for some time. Earlier work on 
this issue has explored several options to restrict or otherwise limit 
out of region use. None of these options have gained consensus within 
the community. The next logical option is a proposal that clearly 
permits out of region use while addressing some of the concerns 
expressed about unlimited openness to out of region use.

Policy statement:

Create new Section X:

ARIN registered resources may be used outside the ARIN service region. 
Out of region use of IPv4, IPv6, or ASNs are valid justification for 
additional number resources if the applicant is currently using at least 
the equivalent of a /22 of IPv4, /44 of IPv6, or 1 ASN within the ARIN 
service region, respectively.

The services and facilities used to justify the need for ARIN resources 
that will be used out of region cannot also be used to justify resource 
requests from another RIR. When a request for resources from ARIN is 
justified by need located within another RIR?s service region, the 
officer of the applicant must attest that the same services and 
facilities have not been used as the basis for a resource request in the 
other region(s). ARIN reserves the right to request a listing of all the 
applicant's number holdings in the region(s) of proposed use, but this 
should happen only when there are significant reasons to suspect 
duplicate requests.

Comments:

a. Timetable for implementation: Immediate

b. Anything else

Current policy is ambiguous on the issue of out of region use of ARIN 
registered resources. The only guidance on the issue in current policy 
is Section 2.2, which defines the the role of RIRs as ?to manage and 
distribute public Internet address space within their respective 
regions.? Some in the community believe this means out of region use 
should be prevented or restricted, while others believe this is only 
intended to focus efforts within the region and not define where 
resources may be used.

Previous policy proposals have explored restricting or otherwise 
limiting out of region use, but none have gained consensus within the 
ARIN community. Several standards for restricting out of region use were 
explored, but all of them were perceived as interfering with the 
legitimate operations of multi- or trans-regional networks.

The requirement to have a minimal level of resources deployed in the 
region (/44 for IPv6, /22 for IPv4, 1 ASN) is an attempt to respond to 
law enforcement and some community concerns. An absolute threshold 
ensures that those applying for ARIN resources are actually operating in 
the region and not simply a shell company, but it avoids the known 
pitfalls of trying to use percentages of the organization's overall 
holdings to do that. The use of officer attestation and the possibility 
of an audit is an attempt to prevent duplicate requests without 
requiring burdensome reporting requirements.

In summary, this proposal ensures that trans-regional organizations or 
service providers operating within the ARIN region may receive all the 
resources they need from ARIN if they wish to do so. This change is 
particularly important for IPv6. Requiring organizations get IPv6 
resources from multiple RIRs will result in additional unique 
non-aggregatable prefixes within the IPv6 route table.

#####

ARIN STAFF ASSESSMENT

Date of Assessment: 22 October 2014 to 13 November 2014
2014-1 ?Out of Region Use?

1. Summary (Staff Understanding)

This policy would allow out of region use of ARIN issued resources as 
long as the requesting organization is an ARIN member in good standing 
and currently using at least a /22, or a /44, or 1 ASN within the ARIN 
region.

2. Comments

A. ARIN Staff Comments

There are registrants in the ARIN region, such as end-users, who are not 
necessarily ARIN members. As written, this policy would not be available 
to an organization that is not currently a member of ARIN, due to the 
use of "ARIN member in good standing" in the policy text. Unless the 
intention is specifically to require ARIN membership, the policy text 
should simply reference "a registrant currently using at least the 
equivalent of a /22 of IPv4, or a /44 of IPv6 in the region."

Staff would apply ARIN policy to all out of region requests to include 
asking for utilization details of resources registered in another RIR?s 
database if the ARIN resources are being requested for use in that region.

This policy adds a new requirement that staff review utilization outside 
of the ARIN region, which will require additional time, and could delay 
the review and processing of requests of this type as well as other 
request types that ARIN currently handles.

B. ARIN General Counsel - Legal Assessment

This policy has been improved from counsel's perspective since the last 
version was reviewed at ARIN 34 in Baltimore.

Counsel recognizes and supports the issuance of resources to entities in 
the ARIN region that need number resources that will be used in both 
this region and in the remainder of the world. ARIN currently issues 
resources for these needs based on a needs based allocation methodology. 
This proposed revised policy now requires that there be /22 of deployed 
resources in the ARIN service region, and once that installation exists 
it allows all of the recipients' needs outside the ARIN service region 
to be met by ARIN. This is a substantial improvement from a legal 
perspective as it requires a "meaningful" or "material" physical 
presence of the recipient in the service region that was absent from the 
prior version. This meets a core objective answering my prior concern 
about the lack of such a requirement.

This policy still represents a type of exception to ICP2, despite the 
helpful added requirement of the recipients /22 presence in region. ARIN 
is governed by ICANN ICP-2, which calls for establishment of a single 
RIR to serve each region. ICP2 further notes that multiple RIRs serving 
in a single region is likely to lead to difficulty for co-ordination and 
co-operation between the RIRs as well as confusion for the community 
within the region. The implication of that governance structure is that 
each RIR can and should serve its service region. This revised policy 
still allows entities with /22 technological connections to the ARIN's 
service region to obtain increasingly scarce IPv4 resources from ARIN 
and related registry services for needs outside the ARIN regions. This 
policy still will result in ARIN effectively providing significant 
registry services to ARIN qualified recipients operating in other RIR 
regions.

If the draft policy is adopted and ARIN provides resources to qualifying 
entities for use outside of the region, it is essential that the present 
requirement for dispute resolution via arbitration at a location in 
ARIN's service region as currently required in the RSA be maintained to 
assist in reducing the risk of ARIN becoming subject to the venue, 
jurisdiction and laws of legal forums outside the ARIN service region.

ARIN cannot perform business functions contemplated in the policy with 
certain countries, and related public or private entities, such as 
relationships to Cuba, Iran and North Korea under U.S. law. This has not 
historically been an issue for ARIN prior to this proposed policy. The 
new requirement to spell out that the recipient must maintain an actual 
physical presence, as well as a corporate legal entity in the ARIN 
region, reduces, but does not entirely eliminate this concern. It may be 
necessary to require ARIN's implementation of this policy to require a 
certification that none of the resources will be deployed contrary to 
U.S., Canada or Caribbean nations law in this respect.

3. Resource Impact

This policy would have significant resource impact from an 
implementation aspect. It is estimated that implementation would occur 
within 5-6 months after ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees. The 
following would be needed in order to implement:

Updated guidelines and internal procedures

Staff training

Engineering efforts to handle out of region business rules may be 
substantial.

4. Proposal/Draft Policy Text Assessed
Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1 Out of Region Use
Date: 21 October 2014
Problem statement:
Current policy neither clearly forbids nor clearly permits out or region 
use of ARIN registered resources. This has created confusion and 
controversy within the ARIN community for some time. Earlier work on 
this issue has explored several options to restrict or otherwise limit 
out of region use. None of these options have gained consensus within 
the community. The next logical option is a proposal that clearly 
permits out of region use while addressing some of the concerns 
expressed about unlimited openness to out of region use.

Policy statement:
Create new Section X:
ARIN registered resources may be used outside the ARIN service region. 
Out of region use of IPv4, IPv6, or ASNs are valid justification for 
additional number resources if the applicant is an ARIN member in good 
standing and is currently using at least the equivalent of a /22 of 
IPv4, or a /44 of IPv6, or 1 ASN within the ARIN service region, 
respectively.
The services and facilities used to justify the need for ARIN resources 
that will be used out of region cannot also be used to justify resource 
requests from another RIR. When a request for resources from ARIN is 
justified by need located within another RIR?s service region, an 
officer of the applicant must attest that the same services and 
facilities have not been used as the basis for a resource request in the 
other region(s). ARIN reserves the right to request a listing of all the 
applicant's number holdings in the region(s) of proposed use, but this 
should happen only when there are significant reasons to suspect 
duplicate requests.

Comments:
a. Timetable for implementation: Immediate
b. Anything else
Current policy is ambiguous on the issue of out of region use of ARIN 
registered resources. The only guidance on the issue in current policy 
is Section 2.2, which defines the the role of RIRs as ?to manage and 
distribute public Internet address space within their respective 
regions.? Some in the community believe this means out of region use 
should be prevented or restricted, while others believe this is only 
intended to focus efforts within the region and not define where 
resources may be used.
Previous policy proposals have explored restricting or otherwise 
limiting out of region use, but none have gained consensus within the 
ARIN community. Several standards for restricting out of region use were 
explored, but all of them were perceived as interfering with the 
legitimate operations of multi- or trans-regional networks.
The requirement to have a minimal level of resources deployed in the 
region (/44 for IPv6, /22 for IPv4, 1 ASN) is an attempt to respond to 
law enforcement and some community concerns. An absolute threshold 
ensures that those applying for ARIN resources are actually operating in 
the region and not simply a shell company, but it avoids the known 
pitfalls of trying to use percentages of the organization's overall 
holdings to do that. The use of officer attestation and the possibility 
of an audit is an attempt to prevent duplicate requests without 
requiring burdensome reporting requirements.
In summary, this proposal ensures that trans-regional organizations or 
service providers operating within the ARIN region may receive all the 
resources they need from ARIN if they wish to do so. This change is 
particularly important for IPv6. Requiring organizations get IPv6 
resources from multiple RIRs will result in additional unique 
non-aggregatable prefixes within the IPv6 route table.


From info at arin.net  Wed Dec 24 11:21:33 2014
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 11:21:33 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change
 Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate
Message-ID: <549AE80D.3080206@arin.net>

Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17
Change Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate

On 18 December 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) recommended
ARIN-2014-17 for adoption, making it a Recommended Draft Policy.

ARIN-2014-17 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_17.html

You are encouraged to discuss Draft Policy 2014-17 on the PPML prior to
the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Consultation at NANOG 63 in San Antonio 
in February 2015. Both the discussion on the list and at the meeting 
will be used by the ARIN Advisory Council to determine the 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,

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


## * ##


Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17
Change Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate

Date: 19 October 2014

AC's assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number 
Resource Policy:

This proposal enables fair and impartial number resource administration 
by removing an impediment to additional allocations seen by some 
organizations due to the shortening of the assignment window to three 
months and the gradual reduction of minimum block size over the past 5 
years. This draft proposal applies equally to all organizations and now 
requires that any netblock show at least 50% utilization before an 
additional block can be allocated or assigned. The policy is clear and 
implementable as written. This proposal is technically sound. There are 
no technical issues which are raised by changing the utilization 
definition within the NRPM. This proposal is supported by the community. 
Support for this draft proposal has been growing as it has been 
discussed. Additional support from the community was seen as issues 
which were brought to the attention of the community by the first staff 
and legal assessment have been mitigated.

Problem Statement:

Current ARIN policy calculates utilization on a per allocation basis 
rather than in aggregate. This method of determining utilization may 
cause some organizations to be unable to qualify for additional address 
blocks despite attempting to use their resource allocations as best as 
possible. This issue has been exacerbated in the past couple of years 
due to the 3-month allocation window which causes organizations to 
receive smaller non-expandable allocations rather than a larger aggregate.

For example, if an organization has 4 x /22 and 3 of them are utilized 
100% and the fourth utilized at 75%, an additional allocation request 
would be denied. However, an organization with a single /20 utilized at 
80% would have less efficient utilization but would be eligible to 
receive additional space.

Policy statement:

Replace Section 4.2.4.1

ISPs must have efficiently utilized all allocations, in aggregate, to at 
least 80% and at least 50% of every allocation in order to receive 
additional space. This includes all space reassigned to their customers.

Replace Section 4.3.6.1

End-users must have efficiently utilized all assignments, in aggregate, 
to at least 80% and at least 50% of every assignment in order to receive 
additional space, and must provide ARIN with utilization details.

Timetable for implementation: Immediate

#####

ARIN STAFF ASSESSMENT

Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17
Change Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate
Date of Assessment: November 2014

1. Summary (Staff Understanding)

This policy removes the current requirement to have efficiently utilized 
all previous allocations and assignments, and 80% of the most recent 
one, and replaces it with the requirement to have efficiently utilized 
all allocations and assignments in aggregate, to at least 80% overall, 
with at least a 50% utilization of every allocated or assigned block.

2. Comments

A. ARIN Staff Comments

Based on staff experience, the 80% utilization rate of the last block 
has been periodically problematic for smaller ISPs, but not for medium 
to larger ISPs. Staff has seen situations where a small ISP with a /22 
may need to issue a /24 to a customer but not have any available, not be 
at 80% utilized, and therefore, not be able to request additional space.

This policy could be implemented as written.

B. ARIN General Counsel - Legal Assessment

The policy does not present material legal issues. Allocation rules to 
address concerns of small ISP's indicate ARIN's continued attempts to 
balance the needs of stewardship with the needs of different sectors.

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 internal procedures
  ? Staff training

4. Proposal/Draft Policy Text Assessed

Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17 Change Utilization Requirements from 
last-allocation to total-aggregate
Date: 19 October 2014
Problem Statement:
Current ARIN policy calculates utilization on a per allocation basis 
rather than in aggregate. This method of determining utilization may 
cause some organizations to be unable to qualify for additional address 
blocks despite attempting to use their resource allocations as best as 
possible. This issue has been exacerbated in the past couple of years 
due to the 3-month allocation window which causes organizations to 
receive smaller non-expandable allocations rather than a larger aggregate.
For example, if an organization has 4 x /22 and 3 of them are utilized 
100% and the fourth utilized at 75%, an additional allocation request 
would be denied. However, an organization with a single /20 utilized at 
80% would have less efficient utilization but would be eligible to 
receive additional space.
Policy statement:
Replace Section 4.2.4.1
ISPs must have efficiently utilized all allocations, in aggregate, to at 
least 80% and at least 50% of every allocation in order to receive 
additional space. This includes all space reassigned to their customers.
Replace Section 4.3.6.1
End-users must have efficiently utilized all assignments, in aggregate, 
to at least 80% and at least 50% of every assignment in order to receive 
additional space, and must provide ARIN with utilization details.


From info at arin.net  Wed Dec 24 11:21:48 2014
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 11:21:48 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-19: New MDN
 Allocation Based on Past Utilization
Message-ID: <549AE81C.3000305@arin.net>

Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-19
New MDN Allocation Based on Past Utilization

On 18 December 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) recommended
ARIN-2014-19 for adoption, making it a Recommended Draft Policy.

ARIN-2014-19 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_19.html

You are encouraged to discuss Draft Policy 2014-19 on the PPML prior to
the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Consultation at NANOG 63 in San Antonio 
in February 2015. Both the discussion on the list and at the meeting 
will be used by the ARIN Advisory Council to determine the 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,

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


## * ##


Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-19
New MDN Allocation Based on Past Utilization

Date: 16 December 2014

AC's assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number 
Resource Policy:

This draft policy enables fair and impartial number resource 
administration by removing an impediment to additional allocations seen 
by some organizations due to the recent policy changes under 
ARIN-2013-08. This draft policy applies equally to all organizations and 
allows for MDN organizations to use previous utilization of a site to 
justify a new allocation for an MDN network site. The policy is clear 
and implementable as written. This proposal is technically sound. There 
are no technical issues which are raised by allowing a new criteria set 
to justify a new MDN network allocation. This proposal is supported by 
the community. Specifically, the draft policy is supported by 
organizations which use the MDN policy for their network allocation.

Problem Statement:
The previous MDN policy was too limiting in that a new MDN could only 
qualify under immediate need. This was extended by ARIN-2013-8 where the 
minimum allocation will now be assigned unless immediate need for more 
can be demonstrated.

Unfortunately, this policy did not go far enough. There may be some 
cases where there is a one year utilization history that is applicable 
to a new MDN. For example, imagine a network that is divided into four 
regions, each an MDN. Three of the four MDNs have been growing at a /20 
per year. The fourth MDN has been growing at a /19 per year, it is over 
80% utilized, and the region is too large. The region will be divided in 
half, which half of the current customers and their addresses to be 
migrated into a new MDN (Region 5). It is also anticipated that half of 
Region 4's growth will be shifted to Region 5. With Region 4 and Region 
5 each above 80%, both should qualify for subsequent allocations at half 
of what was Region 4's growth rate.

Policy statement:

replace section 4.5.4 created by 2013-8:

Upon verification that the organization has shown evidence of deployment 
of the new discrete network site, the new network(s) shall be allocated 
the minimum allocation size under section 4.2.1.5 unless the 
organization can demonstrate additional need using the immediate need 
criteria (4.2.1.6).

with:

Upon verification that the organization has shown

evidence of deployment of the new discrete network site, the new 
network(s) shall be allocated one of the following:

- the minimum allocation size under section 4.2.1.5

- more than the minimum if the organization can demonstrate additional 
need using the immediate need criteria (4.2.1.6)

- a 3-month supply of address space may be requested if the new MDN can 
show a demonstrated one-year utilization history.

Timetable for implementation: Immediate

Comment:

The third bullet was changed from:

"- a three month supply if there is an applicable one year utilization 
rate, specific to the use to be covered by the new MDN, on which to base 
a three month supply on as per 4.2."

to:

"- a 3-month supply of address space may be requested if the new MDN can 
show a demonstrated one-year utilization history."

#####

ARIN STAFF ASSESSMENT

Date of Assessment: 22 October 2014

1. Summary (Staff Understanding)

This policy proposes to change existing NRPM 4.5, ???Multiple Discrete 
Networks??? bullet 7 to add an additional qualifying criteria. Currently 
new sites applying under MDN will qualify for the minimum allocation 
size specified in 4.2.1.5 or under immediate need. This proposal adds 
the option for new MDNs with at least a year???s worth of historical 
utilization data to request up to a 3 month supply of addresses.

2. Comments

A. ARIN Staff Comments

?? If implemented, staff would require the organization to show a direct 
correlation between the demonstrated 1-year utilization rate and the new 
discrete network???s 3 month need.

?? The policy requires an ???applicable 1 year utilization rate??? in 
order to qualify under this criteria. If implemented, staff would 
require that there be at least a full year of utilization data in order 
to qualify for a 3-month supply of address space.

?? The stated criterion is unclear. Staff would suggest restating as 
follows:

o A 3-month supply of address space may be requested if the new MDN can 
show a demonstrated one-year utilization history.

B. ARIN General Counsel - Legal Assessment

This proposal does not create any material legal issue.

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 internal procedures
?? Staff training

4. Proposal/Draft Policy Text Assessed
Date: 3 September 2014
Problem Statement:
The previous MDN policy was too limiting in that a new MDN could only 
qualify under immediate need. This was extended by ARIN-2013-8 where the 
minimum allocation will now be assigned unless immediate need for more 
can be demonstrated.
Unfortunately, this policy did not go far enough. There may be some 
cases where there is a one year utilization history that is applicable 
to a new MDN. For example, imagine a network that is divided into four 
regions, each an MDN. Three of the four MDNs have been growing at a /20 
per year. The fourth MDN has been growing at a /19 per year, it is over 
80% utilized, and the region is too large. The region will be divided in 
half, which half of the current customers and their addresses to be 
migrated into a new MDN (Region 5). It is also anticipated that half of 
Region 4???s growth will be shifted to Region 5. With Region 4 and 
Region 5 each above 80%, both should qualify for subsequent allocations 
at half of what was Region 4???s growth rate.
Policy statement:
replace section 4.5.4 created by 2013-8:
???Upon verification that the organization has shown evidence of 
deployment of the new discrete network site, the new network(s) shall be 
allocated the minimum allocation size under section 4.2.1.5 unless the 
organization can demonstrate additional need using the immediate need 
criteria (4.2.1.6).???
with:
Upon verification that the organization has shown
evidence of deployment of the new discrete network site, the new 
network(s) shall be allocated one of the following:
- the minimum allocation size under section 4.2.1.5
- more than the minimum if the organization can demonstrate additional 
need using the immediate need criteria (4.2.1.6)
- a three month supply if there is an applicable one year utilization 
rate, specific to the use to be covered by the new MDN, on which to base 
a three month supply on as per 4.2.
Timetable for implementation: Immediate


From bill at herrin.us  Wed Dec 24 11:50:42 2014
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 11:50:42 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of Region
	Use
In-Reply-To: <549AE7FF.6090108@arin.net>
References: <549AE7FF.6090108@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGW1KYrTK8WX9or3-AFDqun1_D5GQeF1Gs66Oc5uu7yJog@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 11:21 AM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
> Policy statement:
>
> Create new Section X:
>
> ARIN registered resources may be used outside the ARIN service region. Out
> of region use of IPv4, IPv6, or ASNs are valid justification for additional
> number resources if the applicant is currently using at least the equivalent
> of a /22 of IPv4, /44 of IPv6, or 1 ASN within the ARIN service region,
> respectively.
>
> The services and facilities used to justify the need for ARIN resources that
> will be used out of region cannot also be used to justify resource requests
> from another RIR. When a request for resources from ARIN is justified by
> need located within another RIR?s service region, the officer of the
> applicant must attest that the same services and facilities have not been
> used as the basis for a resource request in the other region(s). ARIN
> reserves the right to request a listing of all the applicant's number
> holdings in the region(s) of proposed use, but this should happen only when
> there are significant reasons to suspect duplicate requests.

I think this is bad policy which will encourage registry shopping by
large multinational companies who really don't need yet another
advantage over their smaller competitors. Worse than just making ARIN
a flag-of-convenience registry to the world, it includes just enough
in-region requirement to shut out small players. I reiterate my
OPPOSITION to this draft policy.

Regards,
Bill Herrin




-- 
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
May I solve your unusual networking challenges?


From bill at herrin.us  Wed Dec 24 11:54:48 2014
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 11:54:48 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change
 Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate
In-Reply-To: <549AE80D.3080206@arin.net>
References: <549AE80D.3080206@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGUQSodsqB6RQSvPnjdMkq_S0xU1f32nMCWtjcmZnHOg9g@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 11:21 AM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
> Policy statement:
>
> Replace Section 4.2.4.1
>
> ISPs must have efficiently utilized all allocations, in aggregate, to at
> least 80% and at least 50% of every allocation in order to receive
> additional space. This includes all space reassigned to their customers.
>
> Replace Section 4.3.6.1
>
> End-users must have efficiently utilized all assignments, in aggregate, to
> at least 80% and at least 50% of every assignment in order to receive
> additional space, and must provide ARIN with utilization details.

I SUPPORT this draft policy as written. I believe it resolves an
ambiguity in ARIN policy regarding utilization of assigned blocks
prior to the most recent in a reasonable and even-handed manner.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
May I solve your unusual networking challenges?


From hannigan at gmail.com  Wed Dec 24 12:03:10 2014
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 12:03:10 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of Region
	Use
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGW1KYrTK8WX9or3-AFDqun1_D5GQeF1Gs66Oc5uu7yJog@mail.gmail.com>
References: <549AE7FF.6090108@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW1KYrTK8WX9or3-AFDqun1_D5GQeF1Gs66Oc5uu7yJog@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75E5775E-F26A-4722-B137-AA8611211E00@gmail.com>

If Ebola were a draft policy it would be this one. Not in favor. 



> On Dec 24, 2014, at 11:50, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 11:21 AM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
>> Policy statement:
>> 
>> Create new Section X:
>> 
>> ARIN registered resources may be used outside the ARIN service region. Out
>> of region use of IPv4, IPv6, or ASNs are valid justification for additional
>> number resources if the applicant is currently using at least the equivalent
>> of a /22 of IPv4, /44 of IPv6, or 1 ASN within the ARIN service region,
>> respectively.
>> 
>> The services and facilities used to justify the need for ARIN resources that
>> will be used out of region cannot also be used to justify resource requests
>> from another RIR. When a request for resources from ARIN is justified by
>> need located within another RIR?s service region, the officer of the
>> applicant must attest that the same services and facilities have not been
>> used as the basis for a resource request in the other region(s). ARIN
>> reserves the right to request a listing of all the applicant's number
>> holdings in the region(s) of proposed use, but this should happen only when
>> there are significant reasons to suspect duplicate requests.
> 
> I think this is bad policy which will encourage registry shopping by
> large multinational companies who really don't need yet another
> advantage over their smaller competitors. Worse than just making ARIN
> a flag-of-convenience registry to the world, it includes just enough
> in-region requirement to shut out small players. I reiterate my
> OPPOSITION to this draft policy.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
> May I solve your unusual networking challenges?
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage 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 rcarpen at network1.net  Wed Dec 24 12:05:33 2014
From: rcarpen at network1.net (Randy Carpenter)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 12:05:33 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <1308815336.613481.1419440684769.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net>
References: <1141224003801.567A-100000@joonya.egh.com>
Message-ID: <1073838686.613482.1419440733010.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net>


I also oppose. John Santos sums up the big points with which I agree:

----- On Dec 24, 2014, at 1:00 AM, John Santos JOHN at egh.com wrote:

> Oppose 2014-14
> 
> 1) /16 is not "small"

Agreed. Even by ARIN definition it is "medium" :-)

> 2) The problem the proposal purports to solve hasn't actually been
>   demonstrated.  "ARIN staff [...] is spending scarce staff time on needs
>   testing of small transfers."  Obviously, doing the necessary checking
>   requires staff time, but is it a significant amount?  Is it taking much
>   longer than it used to?  Is it costing ARIN a lot of money in staff
>   wages and overhead to do these assessments, or is it lost in the noise?

I have not heard or seen any data to support the "ARIN staff is too burdened" argument, other than there being a slightly longer processing time for IPv4 requests, which I am completely fine with. IPv6 requests have been pretty speedy for me.

-Randy


From sethm at rollernet.us  Wed Dec 24 12:20:17 2014
From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 09:20:17 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <1141224003801.567A-100000@joonya.egh.com>
References: <1141224003801.567A-100000@joonya.egh.com>
Message-ID: <549AF5D1.9080306@rollernet.us>

On 12/23/14 22:00, John Santos wrote:
> 1) /16 is not "small"


Then make it /18 to align with the fee schedule definition of "small".

~Seth


From andrew.dul at quark.net  Wed Dec 24 12:23:58 2014
From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 09:23:58 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of Region
 Use
In-Reply-To: <75E5775E-F26A-4722-B137-AA8611211E00@gmail.com>
References: <549AE7FF.6090108@arin.net>	<CAP-guGW1KYrTK8WX9or3-AFDqun1_D5GQeF1Gs66Oc5uu7yJog@mail.gmail.com>
	<75E5775E-F26A-4722-B137-AA8611211E00@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <549AF6AE.7000807@quark.net>

Marty,

Can you be a little more specific.  Are you opposed to the whole concept
or the draft as written? 

Do you support the ARIN's current operational practice of excluding
address space, which is in use outside the region, from being considered
utilized when applying for additional allocations?

This was one of the things this policy was attempting to rectify.

I know you support removing all needs requirements, but that isn't the
current policy in this region. 

Andrew

On 12/24/2014 9:03 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> If Ebola were a draft policy it would be this one. Not in favor. 
>
>
>
>> On Dec 24, 2014, at 11:50, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 11:21 AM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
>>> Policy statement:
>>>
>>> Create new Section X:
>>>
>>> ARIN registered resources may be used outside the ARIN service region. Out
>>> of region use of IPv4, IPv6, or ASNs are valid justification for additional
>>> number resources if the applicant is currently using at least the equivalent
>>> of a /22 of IPv4, /44 of IPv6, or 1 ASN within the ARIN service region,
>>> respectively.
>>>
>>> The services and facilities used to justify the need for ARIN resources that
>>> will be used out of region cannot also be used to justify resource requests
>>> from another RIR. When a request for resources from ARIN is justified by
>>> need located within another RIR?s service region, the officer of the
>>> applicant must attest that the same services and facilities have not been
>>> used as the basis for a resource request in the other region(s). ARIN
>>> reserves the right to request a listing of all the applicant's number
>>> holdings in the region(s) of proposed use, but this should happen only when
>>> there are significant reasons to suspect duplicate requests.
>> I think this is bad policy which will encourage registry shopping by
>> large multinational companies who really don't need yet another
>> advantage over their smaller competitors. Worse than just making ARIN
>> a flag-of-convenience registry to the world, it includes just enough
>> in-region requirement to shut out small players. I reiterate my
>> OPPOSITION to this draft policy.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bill Herrin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
>> May I solve your unusual networking challenges?
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage 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  Wed Dec 24 12:24:35 2014
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 12:24:35 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <1141224003801.567A-100000@joonya.egh.com>
References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1412231454340.55903@mail.inlandnet.com>
	<1141224003801.567A-100000@joonya.egh.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGVuA07GJprQjvX2HG8bOfo3YTiVQGPX1kn0qg7Wd7dHtw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 1:00 AM, John Santos <JOHN at egh.com> wrote:
> Oppose 2014-14
>
> 1) /16 is not "small"

This is the main problem I have with 2014-14. Start with /24's or
maybe /22's and keep track of what happens to them. Then use the
knowledge gained to formulate a better policy when expanding the
process to larger blocks.

I think it also needs a limit on the number of untested transfers in
which an organization can participate in a given time period.

The text itself needs some cleanup to deal with the more obvious
unintended consequences, but the /16 boundary is what kills it for me.


On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Seth Mattinen <sethm at rollernet.us> wrote:
> Then make it /18 to align with the fee schedule definition of "small".

I ran a regional ISP on two /18's. You're not getting the concept of "small."

Regards,
Bill Herrin




-- 
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
May I solve your unusual networking challenges?


From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Dec 24 12:28:40 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 17:28:40 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of
	Region	Use
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGW1KYrTK8WX9or3-AFDqun1_D5GQeF1Gs66Oc5uu7yJog@mail.gmail.com>
References: <549AE7FF.6090108@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW1KYrTK8WX9or3-AFDqun1_D5GQeF1Gs66Oc5uu7yJog@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C7C31AAE-CBF5-461E-AB0D-C80E416C2353@corp.arin.net>

On Dec 24, 2014, at 11:50 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> 
> ...
> I think this is bad policy which will encourage registry shopping by
> large multinational companies who really don't need yet another
> advantage over their smaller competitors. Worse than just making ARIN
> a flag-of-convenience registry to the world, it includes just enough
> in-region requirement to shut out small players. I reiterate my
> OPPOSITION to this draft policy.

Bill - 
 
  Is there are any change to the draft policy which would address
  your concerns regarding it?  More specifically, if the community
  support for the policy ends up being strong due to a perception 
  that it addresses an existing policy flaw, is there any change 
  that would mitigate the harm to small players that you outline 
  above?

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From rcarpen at network1.net  Wed Dec 24 12:31:02 2014
From: rcarpen at network1.net (Randy Carpenter)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 12:31:02 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <1729720763.613578.1419442202805.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net>
References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1412231454340.55903@mail.inlandnet.com>
	<1141224003801.567A-100000@joonya.egh.com>
	<CAP-guGVuA07GJprQjvX2HG8bOfo3YTiVQGPX1kn0qg7Wd7dHtw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <487193277.613579.1419442262421.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net>


I could be on board with such changes. Specifically making the size much smaller (I think /22 would be reasonable) and particularly the limit on untested transfers. (1 per year maybe?) As Bill points out, we can always modify it in the future. It would be fairly trivial and straightforward to change /22 to something different, while keeping the other text in place.


thanks,
-Randy


----- On Dec 24, 2014, at 12:24 PM, William Herrin bill at herrin.us wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 1:00 AM, John Santos <JOHN at egh.com> wrote:
>> Oppose 2014-14
>>
>> 1) /16 is not "small"
> 
> This is the main problem I have with 2014-14. Start with /24's or
> maybe /22's and keep track of what happens to them. Then use the
> knowledge gained to formulate a better policy when expanding the
> process to larger blocks.
> 
> I think it also needs a limit on the number of untested transfers in
> which an organization can participate in a given time period.
> 
> The text itself needs some cleanup to deal with the more obvious
> unintended consequences, but the /16 boundary is what kills it for me.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Seth Mattinen <sethm at rollernet.us> wrote:
>> Then make it /18 to align with the fee schedule definition of "small".
> 
> I ran a regional ISP on two /18's. You're not getting the concept of "small."
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin



From sethm at rollernet.us  Wed Dec 24 12:33:08 2014
From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 09:33:08 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVuA07GJprQjvX2HG8bOfo3YTiVQGPX1kn0qg7Wd7dHtw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1412231454340.55903@mail.inlandnet.com>	<1141224003801.567A-100000@joonya.egh.com>
	<CAP-guGVuA07GJprQjvX2HG8bOfo3YTiVQGPX1kn0qg7Wd7dHtw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <549AF8D4.80207@rollernet.us>

On 12/24/14 9:24, William Herrin wrote:
> I ran a regional ISP on two /18's. You're not getting the concept of "small."


I get it. I just don't agree.

~Seth


From bill at herrin.us  Wed Dec 24 14:26:00 2014
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 14:26:00 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of Region
	Use
In-Reply-To: <C7C31AAE-CBF5-461E-AB0D-C80E416C2353@corp.arin.net>
References: <549AE7FF.6090108@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW1KYrTK8WX9or3-AFDqun1_D5GQeF1Gs66Oc5uu7yJog@mail.gmail.com>
	<C7C31AAE-CBF5-461E-AB0D-C80E416C2353@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGXOureQZWAkXt-jasvXAOzQZA4-ogAOU64HEJ-ONAYBxg@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 12:28 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Dec 24, 2014, at 11:50 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>> I think this is bad policy which will encourage registry shopping by
>> large multinational companies who really don't need yet another
>> advantage over their smaller competitors. Worse than just making ARIN
>> a flag-of-convenience registry to the world, it includes just enough
>> in-region requirement to shut out small players. I reiterate my
>> OPPOSITION to this draft policy.
>
>   Is there are any change to the draft policy which would address
>   your concerns regarding it?  More specifically, if the community
>   support for the policy ends up being strong due to a perception
>   that it addresses an existing policy flaw, is there any change
>   that would mitigate the harm to small players that you outline
>   above?

Hi John,

I'm don't think there is such a change but there are a few things that
jump out at me as being particularly offensive.

1. This issue is not a concern for ARIN number resources overall. Now
and for the foreseeable future it frankly only matters for IPv4
addresses. Crafting a one-size-fits-all policy here needlessly
complicates the matter. No one here cares whether AS numbers or IPv6
addresses are used out-region and burning one single staff minute
analyzing the acceptability of such is a waste. Worse, crafting the
policy to act reasonably with the other number resources corrupts its
ability to deal correctly with the IPv4 situation.

2. I disagree with spinning it as an existing policy flaw. There's a
ARIN -implementation- flaw here. Classically and consistent with the
spirit of ICP2, the RIRs allow minor outregion use of addresses that's
incidental to an in-region operation. And you know what? You haven't
been the slightest bit shy about deciding that external documents like
ICP2 and RFC2050 constrain ARIN activity in other matters like the /10
for large scale NAT. I don't know how ARIN got itself twisted up where
it couldn't find the limits of "minor" and "incidental" but trying to
override that with rigid policy requirements is going to be
problematic.

3. Registry shopping is a bad bad bad idea. It defeats and is directly
contrary to the whole ICP2 spirit of LOCAL self-governance. As
written, this policy doesn't discourage region shopping, it codifies
it. RIPE policies gotcha down? No sweat, we'll buy a cage in Ashburn
Equinix and use that as a jumping board to shop ARIN instead. As long
as you're big enough to afford that cage and the servers inside, this
policy removes all limits.

4. Limiting the registrants to folks making a notional use of IP
addresses or a single AS number somewhere inside the ARIN region just
makes it worse. There's already a fairness gulf between shops large
enough to employ a dedicated number resource group and those who must
rely on consultants and luck to find a path through the registries'
arcane rules. The 1AS/22/44 rule poses no real obstacle to a
multinational grabbing addresses where convenient but it sows even
more challenge and confusion for a smaller shop.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
May I solve your unusual networking challenges?


From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Dec 24 14:53:04 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 19:53:04 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of Region
 Use
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGXOureQZWAkXt-jasvXAOzQZA4-ogAOU64HEJ-ONAYBxg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <549AE7FF.6090108@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW1KYrTK8WX9or3-AFDqun1_D5GQeF1Gs66Oc5uu7yJog@mail.gmail.com>
	<C7C31AAE-CBF5-461E-AB0D-C80E416C2353@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGXOureQZWAkXt-jasvXAOzQZA4-ogAOU64HEJ-ONAYBxg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <43B82EA9-2347-48DA-8E75-C7DDA432C7B4@arin.net>

On Dec 24, 2014, at 2:26 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> 
> I'm don't think there is such a change but there are a few things that
> jump out at me as being particularly offensive.
> 
> 1. This issue is not a concern for ARIN number resources overall. Now
> and for the foreseeable future it frankly only matters for IPv4
> addresses. Crafting a one-size-fits-all policy here needlessly
> complicates the matter. No one here cares whether AS numbers or IPv6
> addresses are used out-region and burning one single staff minute
> analyzing the acceptability of such is a waste. Worse, crafting the
> policy to act reasonably with the other number resources corrupts its
> ability to deal correctly with the IPv4 situation.
> 
> 2. I disagree with spinning it as an existing policy flaw. There's a
> ARIN -implementation- flaw here. Classically and consistent with the
> spirit of ICP2, the RIRs allow minor outregion use of addresses that's
> incidental to an in-region operation. And you know what? You haven't
> been the slightest bit shy about deciding that external documents like
> ICP2 and RFC2050 constrain ARIN activity in other matters like the /10
> for large scale NAT. I don't know how ARIN got itself twisted up where
> it couldn't find the limits of "minor" and "incidental" but trying to
> override that with rigid policy requirements is going to be
> problematic.

To be clear, I was not stating that the draft policy addresses addresses
a policy flaw; I was asking for your thoughts about potential mitigation 
steps (if any) for your perceived concerns should the community decide 
the draft policy should be adopted because they perceive it to address
some flaw.

With respect to incidental out-of-region usage, you are incorrect in that
we presently do allow such incidental usage, but the resources that are 
requested must be based upon demand within the region.  This point has been 
explained several times, including in the ARIN 31 Policy Experience Report 
<https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_31/PDF/monday/nobile_policy.pdf>

> 3. Registry shopping is a bad bad bad idea. It defeats and is directly
> contrary to the whole ICP2 spirit of LOCAL self-governance. As
> written, this policy doesn't discourage region shopping, it codifies
> it. RIPE policies gotcha down? No sweat, we'll buy a cage in Ashburn
> Equinix and use that as a jumping board to shop ARIN instead. As long
> as you're big enough to afford that cage and the servers inside, this
> policy removes all limits.

As noted in the referenced Policy Experience Report, some RIR shopping
is likely occurring today, and current policy text is less than clear 
in this area.  ARIN staff reported on this to the community, and there 
has been a range of potential policy changes suggested as a result; some
of these disallowed out of region use and some explicitly allowed it.

> 4. Limiting the registrants to folks making a notional use of IP
> addresses or a single AS number somewhere inside the ARIN region just
> makes it worse. There's already a fairness gulf between shops large
> enough to employ a dedicated number resource group and those who must
> rely on consultants and luck to find a path through the registries'
> arcane rules. The 1AS/22/44 rule poses no real obstacle to a
> multinational grabbing addresses where convenient but it sows even
> more challenge and confusion for a smaller shop.

Thank you for expressing your views on the proposed draft policy; it 
would best for advocates of the policy change to address your concerns.

Absent any policy change, we will continue to implement the current policy
as noted in the policy experience report.  You should suggest alternative
policy text in this area if neither the current policy implementation nor 
the recommended draft policy meets your needs.

Thanks (and Happy Holidays!)
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN





From bill at herrin.us  Wed Dec 24 15:36:05 2014
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 15:36:05 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of Region
	Use
In-Reply-To: <43B82EA9-2347-48DA-8E75-C7DDA432C7B4@arin.net>
References: <549AE7FF.6090108@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW1KYrTK8WX9or3-AFDqun1_D5GQeF1Gs66Oc5uu7yJog@mail.gmail.com>
	<C7C31AAE-CBF5-461E-AB0D-C80E416C2353@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGXOureQZWAkXt-jasvXAOzQZA4-ogAOU64HEJ-ONAYBxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<43B82EA9-2347-48DA-8E75-C7DDA432C7B4@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGXJj4Cpv00CedFM2nHN64s0d7DsSaieaByP2Ye1JPBKVQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 2:53 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Dec 24, 2014, at 2:26 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>> 2. I disagree with spinning it as an existing policy flaw. There's a
>> ARIN -implementation- flaw here. Classically and consistent with the
>> spirit of ICP2, the RIRs allow minor outregion use of addresses that's
>> incidental to an in-region operation. And you know what? You haven't
>> been the slightest bit shy about deciding that external documents like
>> ICP2 and RFC2050 constrain ARIN activity in other matters like the /10
>> for large scale NAT. I don't know how ARIN got itself twisted up where
>> it couldn't find the limits of "minor" and "incidental" but trying to
>> override that with rigid policy requirements is going to be
>> problematic.
>
>
> With respect to incidental out-of-region usage, you are incorrect in that
> we presently do allow such incidental usage, but the resources that are
> requested must be based upon demand within the region.  This point has been
> explained several times, including in the ARIN 31 Policy Experience Report
> <https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_31/PDF/monday/nobile_policy.pdf>


Hi John,

I understand this statement to mean that ARIN currently deems ARIN
addresses employed on equipment outside the region to be "unused" when
determining a registrant's qualification. Is that correct? This is
different than my understanding of the referenced document which, to
me, implies that use outside the region is considered if the
organization exists as a legal entity within the region. Staff then
express frustration at how to verify utilization of those addresses
used outside the region.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
May I solve your unusual networking challenges?


From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Dec 24 16:11:41 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 21:11:41 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of Region
 Use
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGXJj4Cpv00CedFM2nHN64s0d7DsSaieaByP2Ye1JPBKVQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <549AE7FF.6090108@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW1KYrTK8WX9or3-AFDqun1_D5GQeF1Gs66Oc5uu7yJog@mail.gmail.com>
	<C7C31AAE-CBF5-461E-AB0D-C80E416C2353@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGXOureQZWAkXt-jasvXAOzQZA4-ogAOU64HEJ-ONAYBxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<43B82EA9-2347-48DA-8E75-C7DDA432C7B4@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGXJj4Cpv00CedFM2nHN64s0d7DsSaieaByP2Ye1JPBKVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E47C1C62-064B-4ED0-BB9D-649958A794FE@arin.net>

On Dec 24, 2014, at 3:36 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 2:53 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 24, 2014, at 2:26 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>>> 2. I disagree with spinning it as an existing policy flaw. There's a
>>> ARIN -implementation- flaw here. Classically and consistent with the
>>> spirit of ICP2, the RIRs allow minor outregion use of addresses that's
>>> incidental to an in-region operation. And you know what? You haven't
>>> been the slightest bit shy about deciding that external documents like
>>> ICP2 and RFC2050 constrain ARIN activity in other matters like the /10
>>> for large scale NAT. I don't know how ARIN got itself twisted up where
>>> it couldn't find the limits of "minor" and "incidental" but trying to
>>> override that with rigid policy requirements is going to be
>>> problematic.
>> 
>> With respect to incidental out-of-region usage, you are incorrect in that
>> we presently do allow such incidental usage, but the resources that are
>> requested must be based upon demand within the region.  This point has been
>> explained several times, including in the ARIN 31 Policy Experience Report
>> <https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_31/PDF/monday/nobile_policy.pdf>
> 
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> I understand this statement to mean that ARIN currently deems ARIN
> addresses employed on equipment outside the region to be "unused" when
> determining a registrant's qualification. Is that correct? This is
> different than my understanding of the referenced document which, to
> me, implies that use outside the region is considered if the
> organization exists as a legal entity within the region. Staff then
> express frustration at how to verify utilization of those addresses
> used outside the region.

Bill - 
 
   I believe you already asked about how we determine address utilization in 
   this regard, and there was a fairly lengthy discussion on 7 October 2013 - 
   <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2013-October/027374.html>

   Short answer remains that ARIN administers address space for use in the
   region, which means that the utilization considered must be based on the
   customer or equipment assignments within the ARIN region.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

    

From ikiris at gmail.com  Wed Dec 24 16:39:04 2014
From: ikiris at gmail.com (Blake Dunlap)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 13:39:04 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of Region
	Use
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGXOureQZWAkXt-jasvXAOzQZA4-ogAOU64HEJ-ONAYBxg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <549AE7FF.6090108@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW1KYrTK8WX9or3-AFDqun1_D5GQeF1Gs66Oc5uu7yJog@mail.gmail.com>
	<C7C31AAE-CBF5-461E-AB0D-C80E416C2353@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGXOureQZWAkXt-jasvXAOzQZA4-ogAOU64HEJ-ONAYBxg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJvB4t=VfVQp8neE5csMTMFJQN7Dna-rVwoVUen73=osE60qtA@mail.gmail.com>

I actually pretty much agree with everything Mr. Herrin states in the below
email.

-Blake
On Dec 24, 2014 1:26 PM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 12:28 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 24, 2014, at 11:50 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> >> I think this is bad policy which will encourage registry shopping by
> >> large multinational companies who really don't need yet another
> >> advantage over their smaller competitors. Worse than just making ARIN
> >> a flag-of-convenience registry to the world, it includes just enough
> >> in-region requirement to shut out small players. I reiterate my
> >> OPPOSITION to this draft policy.
> >
> >   Is there are any change to the draft policy which would address
> >   your concerns regarding it?  More specifically, if the community
> >   support for the policy ends up being strong due to a perception
> >   that it addresses an existing policy flaw, is there any change
> >   that would mitigate the harm to small players that you outline
> >   above?
>
> Hi John,
>
> I'm don't think there is such a change but there are a few things that
> jump out at me as being particularly offensive.
>
> 1. This issue is not a concern for ARIN number resources overall. Now
> and for the foreseeable future it frankly only matters for IPv4
> addresses. Crafting a one-size-fits-all policy here needlessly
> complicates the matter. No one here cares whether AS numbers or IPv6
> addresses are used out-region and burning one single staff minute
> analyzing the acceptability of such is a waste. Worse, crafting the
> policy to act reasonably with the other number resources corrupts its
> ability to deal correctly with the IPv4 situation.
>
> 2. I disagree with spinning it as an existing policy flaw. There's a
> ARIN -implementation- flaw here. Classically and consistent with the
> spirit of ICP2, the RIRs allow minor outregion use of addresses that's
> incidental to an in-region operation. And you know what? You haven't
> been the slightest bit shy about deciding that external documents like
> ICP2 and RFC2050 constrain ARIN activity in other matters like the /10
> for large scale NAT. I don't know how ARIN got itself twisted up where
> it couldn't find the limits of "minor" and "incidental" but trying to
> override that with rigid policy requirements is going to be
> problematic.
>
> 3. Registry shopping is a bad bad bad idea. It defeats and is directly
> contrary to the whole ICP2 spirit of LOCAL self-governance. As
> written, this policy doesn't discourage region shopping, it codifies
> it. RIPE policies gotcha down? No sweat, we'll buy a cage in Ashburn
> Equinix and use that as a jumping board to shop ARIN instead. As long
> as you're big enough to afford that cage and the servers inside, this
> policy removes all limits.
>
> 4. Limiting the registrants to folks making a notional use of IP
> addresses or a single AS number somewhere inside the ARIN region just
> makes it worse. There's already a fairness gulf between shops large
> enough to employ a dedicated number resource group and those who must
> rely on consultants and luck to find a path through the registries'
> arcane rules. The 1AS/22/44 rule poses no real obstacle to a
> multinational grabbing addresses where convenient but it sows even
> more challenge and confusion for a smaller shop.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
>
> --
> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
> May I solve your unusual networking challenges?
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage 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/20141224/6ed96a66/attachment.htm>

From bill at herrin.us  Wed Dec 24 17:27:02 2014
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 17:27:02 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of Region
	Use
In-Reply-To: <E47C1C62-064B-4ED0-BB9D-649958A794FE@arin.net>
References: <549AE7FF.6090108@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW1KYrTK8WX9or3-AFDqun1_D5GQeF1Gs66Oc5uu7yJog@mail.gmail.com>
	<C7C31AAE-CBF5-461E-AB0D-C80E416C2353@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGXOureQZWAkXt-jasvXAOzQZA4-ogAOU64HEJ-ONAYBxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<43B82EA9-2347-48DA-8E75-C7DDA432C7B4@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGXJj4Cpv00CedFM2nHN64s0d7DsSaieaByP2Ye1JPBKVQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<E47C1C62-064B-4ED0-BB9D-649958A794FE@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGW6bS9K+iZ2fyDbgGohUFGbQ6=mLb62-yavfd5E+09gxg@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 4:11 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>    Short answer remains that ARIN administers address space for use in the
>    region, which means that the utilization considered must be based on the
>    customer or equipment assignments within the ARIN region.

Thanks John,

That makes my answer simple: keep doing what you're doing. No change
in policy desired.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
May I solve your unusual networking challenges?


From rudi.daniel at gmail.com  Wed Dec 24 19:40:14 2014
From: rudi.daniel at gmail.com (Rudolph Daniel)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 19:40:14 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2014-19
Message-ID: <CA+uaoiU77v_WpHQvNaJHL22c7uewRQMzDmH7_m9E9C-zHxwbhQ@mail.gmail.com>

I support this policy.

Rudi Daniel
ICT consulting
On Dec 24, 2014 1:24 PM, <arin-ppml-request at arin.net> wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
>         arin-ppml at arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         arin-ppml-request at arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         arin-ppml-owner at arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-19: New MDN Allocation
>       Based on Past Utilization (ARIN)
>    2. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of Region   Use
>       (William Herrin)
>    3. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change Utilization
>       Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate (William Herrin)
>    4. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of Region   Use
>       (Martin Hannigan)
>    5. Re: 2014-14, was Internet Fairness (Randy Carpenter)
>    6. Re: 2014-14, was Internet Fairness (Seth Mattinen)
>    7. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of Region Use
>       (Andrew Dul)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 11:21:48 -0500
> From: ARIN <info at arin.net>
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-19: New MDN
>         Allocation Based on Past Utilization
> Message-ID: <549AE81C.3000305 at arin.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-19
> New MDN Allocation Based on Past Utilization
>
> On 18 December 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) recommended
> ARIN-2014-19 for adoption, making it a Recommended Draft Policy.
>
> ARIN-2014-19 is below and can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_19.html
>
> You are encouraged to discuss Draft Policy 2014-19 on the PPML prior to
> the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Consultation at NANOG 63 in San Antonio
> in February 2015. Both the discussion on the list and at the meeting
> will be used by the ARIN Advisory Council to determine the 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,
>
> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
> ## * ##
>
>
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-19
> New MDN Allocation Based on Past Utilization
>
> Date: 16 December 2014
>
> AC's assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number
> Resource Policy:
>
> This draft policy enables fair and impartial number resource
> administration by removing an impediment to additional allocations seen
> by some organizations due to the recent policy changes under
> ARIN-2013-08. This draft policy applies equally to all organizations and
> allows for MDN organizations to use previous utilization of a site to
> justify a new allocation for an MDN network site. The policy is clear
> and implementable as written. This proposal is technically sound. There
> are no technical issues which are raised by allowing a new criteria set
> to justify a new MDN network allocation. This proposal is supported by
> the community. Specifically, the draft policy is supported by
> organizations which use the MDN policy for their network allocation.
>
> Problem Statement:
> The previous MDN policy was too limiting in that a new MDN could only
> qualify under immediate need. This was extended by ARIN-2013-8 where the
> minimum allocation will now be assigned unless immediate need for more
> can be demonstrated.
>
> Unfortunately, this policy did not go far enough. There may be some
> cases where there is a one year utilization history that is applicable
> to a new MDN. For example, imagine a network that is divided into four
> regions, each an MDN. Three of the four MDNs have been growing at a /20
> per year. The fourth MDN has been growing at a /19 per year, it is over
> 80% utilized, and the region is too large. The region will be divided in
> half, which half of the current customers and their addresses to be
> migrated into a new MDN (Region 5). It is also anticipated that half of
> Region 4's growth will be shifted to Region 5. With Region 4 and Region
> 5 each above 80%, both should qualify for subsequent allocations at half
> of what was Region 4's growth rate.
>
> Policy statement:
>
> replace section 4.5.4 created by 2013-8:
>
> Upon verification that the organization has shown evidence of deployment
> of the new discrete network site, the new network(s) shall be allocated
> the minimum allocation size under section 4.2.1.5 unless the
> organization can demonstrate additional need using the immediate need
> criteria (4.2.1.6).
>
> with:
>
> Upon verification that the organization has shown
>
> evidence of deployment of the new discrete network site, the new
> network(s) shall be allocated one of the following:
>
> - the minimum allocation size under section 4.2.1.5
>
> - more than the minimum if the organization can demonstrate additional
> need using the immediate need criteria (4.2.1.6)
>
> - a 3-month supply of address space may be requested if the new MDN can
> show a demonstrated one-year utilization history.
>
> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
>
> Comment:
>
> The third bullet was changed from:
>
> "- a three month supply if there is an applicable one year utilization
> rate, specific to the use to be covered by the new MDN, on which to base
> a three month supply on as per 4.2."
>
> to:
>
> "- a 3-month supply of address space may be requested if the new MDN can
> show a demonstrated one-year utilization history."
>
> #####
>
> ARIN STAFF ASSESSMENT
>
> Date of Assessment: 22 October 2014
>
> 1. Summary (Staff Understanding)
>
> This policy proposes to change existing NRPM 4.5, ???Multiple Discrete
> Networks??? bullet 7 to add an additional qualifying criteria. Currently
> new sites applying under MDN will qualify for the minimum allocation
> size specified in 4.2.1.5 or under immediate need. This proposal adds
> the option for new MDNs with at least a year???s worth of historical
> utilization data to request up to a 3 month supply of addresses.
>
> 2. Comments
>
> A. ARIN Staff Comments
>
> ?? If implemented, staff would require the organization to show a direct
> correlation between the demonstrated 1-year utilization rate and the new
> discrete network???s 3 month need.
>
> ?? The policy requires an ???applicable 1 year utilization rate??? in
> order to qualify under this criteria. If implemented, staff would
> require that there be at least a full year of utilization data in order
> to qualify for a 3-month supply of address space.
>
> ?? The stated criterion is unclear. Staff would suggest restating as
> follows:
>
> o A 3-month supply of address space may be requested if the new MDN can
> show a demonstrated one-year utilization history.
>
> B. ARIN General Counsel - Legal Assessment
>
> This proposal does not create any material legal issue.
>
> 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 internal procedures
> ?? Staff training
>
> 4. Proposal/Draft Policy Text Assessed
> Date: 3 September 2014
> Problem Statement:
> The previous MDN policy was too limiting in that a new MDN could only
> qualify under immediate need. This was extended by ARIN-2013-8 where the
> minimum allocation will now be assigned unless immediate need for more
> can be demonstrated.
> Unfortunately, this policy did not go far enough. There may be some
> cases where there is a one year utilization history that is applicable
> to a new MDN. For example, imagine a network that is divided into four
> regions, each an MDN. Three of the four MDNs have been growing at a /20
> per year. The fourth MDN has been growing at a /19 per year, it is over
> 80% utilized, and the region is too large. The region will be divided in
> half, which half of the current customers and their addresses to be
> migrated into a new MDN (Region 5). It is also anticipated that half of
> Region 4???s growth will be shifted to Region 5. With Region 4 and
> Region 5 each above 80%, both should qualify for subsequent allocations
> at half of what was Region 4???s growth rate.
> Policy statement:
> replace section 4.5.4 created by 2013-8:
> ???Upon verification that the organization has shown evidence of
> deployment of the new discrete network site, the new network(s) shall be
> allocated the minimum allocation size under section 4.2.1.5 unless the
> organization can demonstrate additional need using the immediate need
> criteria (4.2.1.6).???
> with:
> Upon verification that the organization has shown
> evidence of deployment of the new discrete network site, the new
> network(s) shall be allocated one of the following:
> - the minimum allocation size under section 4.2.1.5
> - more than the minimum if the organization can demonstrate additional
> need using the immediate need criteria (4.2.1.6)
> - a three month supply if there is an applicable one year utilization
> rate, specific to the use to be covered by the new MDN, on which to base
> a three month supply on as per 4.2.
> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 11:50:42 -0500
> From: William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of
>         Region  Use
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAP-guGW1KYrTK8WX9or3-AFDqun1_D5GQeF1Gs66Oc5uu7yJog at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 11:21 AM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
> > Policy statement:
> >
> > Create new Section X:
> >
> > ARIN registered resources may be used outside the ARIN service region.
> Out
> > of region use of IPv4, IPv6, or ASNs are valid justification for
> additional
> > number resources if the applicant is currently using at least the
> equivalent
> > of a /22 of IPv4, /44 of IPv6, or 1 ASN within the ARIN service region,
> > respectively.
> >
> > The services and facilities used to justify the need for ARIN resources
> that
> > will be used out of region cannot also be used to justify resource
> requests
> > from another RIR. When a request for resources from ARIN is justified by
> > need located within another RIR?s service region, the officer of the
> > applicant must attest that the same services and facilities have not been
> > used as the basis for a resource request in the other region(s). ARIN
> > reserves the right to request a listing of all the applicant's number
> > holdings in the region(s) of proposed use, but this should happen only
> when
> > there are significant reasons to suspect duplicate requests.
>
> I think this is bad policy which will encourage registry shopping by
> large multinational companies who really don't need yet another
> advantage over their smaller competitors. Worse than just making ARIN
> a flag-of-convenience registry to the world, it includes just enough
> in-region requirement to shut out small players. I reiterate my
> OPPOSITION to this draft policy.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
>
>
> --
> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
> May I solve your unusual networking challenges?
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 11:54:48 -0500
> From: William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change
>         Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAP-guGUQSodsqB6RQSvPnjdMkq_S0xU1f32nMCWtjcmZnHOg9g at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 11:21 AM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
> > Policy statement:
> >
> > Replace Section 4.2.4.1
> >
> > ISPs must have efficiently utilized all allocations, in aggregate, to at
> > least 80% and at least 50% of every allocation in order to receive
> > additional space. This includes all space reassigned to their customers.
> >
> > Replace Section 4.3.6.1
> >
> > End-users must have efficiently utilized all assignments, in aggregate,
> to
> > at least 80% and at least 50% of every assignment in order to receive
> > additional space, and must provide ARIN with utilization details.
>
> I SUPPORT this draft policy as written. I believe it resolves an
> ambiguity in ARIN policy regarding utilization of assigned blocks
> prior to the most recent in a reasonable and even-handed manner.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
> May I solve your unusual networking challenges?
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 12:03:10 -0500
> From: Martin  Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com>
> To: William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of
>         Region  Use
> Message-ID: <75E5775E-F26A-4722-B137-AA8611211E00 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=utf-8
>
> If Ebola were a draft policy it would be this one. Not in favor.
>
>
>
> > On Dec 24, 2014, at 11:50, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 11:21 AM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
> >> Policy statement:
> >>
> >> Create new Section X:
> >>
> >> ARIN registered resources may be used outside the ARIN service region.
> Out
> >> of region use of IPv4, IPv6, or ASNs are valid justification for
> additional
> >> number resources if the applicant is currently using at least the
> equivalent
> >> of a /22 of IPv4, /44 of IPv6, or 1 ASN within the ARIN service region,
> >> respectively.
> >>
> >> The services and facilities used to justify the need for ARIN resources
> that
> >> will be used out of region cannot also be used to justify resource
> requests
> >> from another RIR. When a request for resources from ARIN is justified by
> >> need located within another RIR?s service region, the officer of the
> >> applicant must attest that the same services and facilities have not
> been
> >> used as the basis for a resource request in the other region(s). ARIN
> >> reserves the right to request a listing of all the applicant's number
> >> holdings in the region(s) of proposed use, but this should happen only
> when
> >> there are significant reasons to suspect duplicate requests.
> >
> > I think this is bad policy which will encourage registry shopping by
> > large multinational companies who really don't need yet another
> > advantage over their smaller competitors. Worse than just making ARIN
> > a flag-of-convenience registry to the world, it includes just enough
> > in-region requirement to shut out small players. I reiterate my
> > OPPOSITION to this draft policy.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bill Herrin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
> > May I solve your unusual networking challenges?
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 12:05:33 -0500 (EST)
> From: Randy Carpenter <rcarpen at network1.net>
> To: John Santos <JOHN at egh.com>
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness
> Message-ID:
>         <1073838686.613482.1419440733010.JavaMail.zimbra at network1.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>
> I also oppose. John Santos sums up the big points with which I agree:
>
> ----- On Dec 24, 2014, at 1:00 AM, John Santos JOHN at egh.com wrote:
>
> > Oppose 2014-14
> >
> > 1) /16 is not "small"
>
> Agreed. Even by ARIN definition it is "medium" :-)
>
> > 2) The problem the proposal purports to solve hasn't actually been
> >   demonstrated.  "ARIN staff [...] is spending scarce staff time on needs
> >   testing of small transfers."  Obviously, doing the necessary checking
> >   requires staff time, but is it a significant amount?  Is it taking much
> >   longer than it used to?  Is it costing ARIN a lot of money in staff
> >   wages and overhead to do these assessments, or is it lost in the noise?
>
> I have not heard or seen any data to support the "ARIN staff is too
> burdened" argument, other than there being a slightly longer processing
> time for IPv4 requests, which I am completely fine with. IPv6 requests have
> been pretty speedy for me.
>
> -Randy
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 09:20:17 -0800
> From: Seth Mattinen <sethm at rollernet.us>
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness
> Message-ID: <549AF5D1.9080306 at rollernet.us>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> On 12/23/14 22:00, John Santos wrote:
> > 1) /16 is not "small"
>
>
> Then make it /18 to align with the fee schedule definition of "small".
>
> ~Seth
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 09:23:58 -0800
> From: Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net>
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of
>         Region Use
> Message-ID: <549AF6AE.7000807 at quark.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Marty,
>
> Can you be a little more specific.  Are you opposed to the whole concept
> or the draft as written?
>
> Do you support the ARIN's current operational practice of excluding
> address space, which is in use outside the region, from being considered
> utilized when applying for additional allocations?
>
> This was one of the things this policy was attempting to rectify.
>
> I know you support removing all needs requirements, but that isn't the
> current policy in this region.
>
> Andrew
>
> On 12/24/2014 9:03 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> > If Ebola were a draft policy it would be this one. Not in favor.
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Dec 24, 2014, at 11:50, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 11:21 AM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
> >>> Policy statement:
> >>>
> >>> Create new Section X:
> >>>
> >>> ARIN registered resources may be used outside the ARIN service region.
> Out
> >>> of region use of IPv4, IPv6, or ASNs are valid justification for
> additional
> >>> number resources if the applicant is currently using at least the
> equivalent
> >>> of a /22 of IPv4, /44 of IPv6, or 1 ASN within the ARIN service region,
> >>> respectively.
> >>>
> >>> The services and facilities used to justify the need for ARIN
> resources that
> >>> will be used out of region cannot also be used to justify resource
> requests
> >>> from another RIR. When a request for resources from ARIN is justified
> by
> >>> need located within another RIR?s service region, the officer of the
> >>> applicant must attest that the same services and facilities have not
> been
> >>> used as the basis for a resource request in the other region(s). ARIN
> >>> reserves the right to request a listing of all the applicant's number
> >>> holdings in the region(s) of proposed use, but this should happen only
> when
> >>> there are significant reasons to suspect duplicate requests.
> >> I think this is bad policy which will encourage registry shopping by
> >> large multinational companies who really don't need yet another
> >> advantage over their smaller competitors. Worse than just making ARIN
> >> a flag-of-convenience registry to the world, it includes just enough
> >> in-region requirement to shut out small players. I reiterate my
> >> OPPOSITION to this draft policy.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Bill Herrin
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> >> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
> >> May I solve your unusual networking challenges?
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> PPML
> >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> >> Unsubscribe or manage 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.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML mailing list
> ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>
> End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 114, Issue 50
> ******************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141224/d486c241/attachment.htm>

From mpetach at netflight.com  Thu Dec 25 09:19:35 2014
From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach)
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2014 06:19:35 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1412231454340.55903@mail.inlandnet.com>
References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A526C08@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A54561F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<54953C9D.1050303@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A5671BF@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<54989AB5.2070504@ipinc.net>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A57A790@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<EDE6239A5447704C9889F863709AAA190A9A283D@EXCH2.charlotte.lan>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12016A57AD20@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<1449961006.609904.1419373729430.JavaMail.zimbra@network1.net>
	<alpine.BSF.2.00.1412231454340.55903@mail.inlandnet.com>
Message-ID: <CAEmG1=qYLvBhKJcjG-AOdb+xN6HpSMsxLA8DrzO4=coW1Ne=xA@mail.gmail.com>

I oppose the proposed policy as currently drafted.
The notion of a /16 being "small" is ludicrous.
By the time you need a /16, you have enough
staff to handle tracking your SWIP/rwhois data
for your customers, and justifying needs is just
part and parcel of running your business.

I would support a modified version of the policy
that stipulated a single needs-free transfer of a /22
per year per org-ID as a means to help support truly
small entities getting going.
I would further encourage a cap; such needs-free
transfers would only apply to org-IDs so long as
they remain in the "small" category based on
overall cumulative holdings.  Once an org-ID
exceeded the total holdings allowed in the "small"
category, it's time to trade in the diapers for the
big-boy pants, and track your utilization and
show demonstrated need over time.

Thanks!

Matt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141225/dfa5e900/attachment.htm>

From owen at delong.com  Thu Dec 25 18:53:14 2014
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2014 15:53:14 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool
	Size per Section 4.4
In-Reply-To: <CAGkMwz4Dc2UVK-eONgYykM__JgvzGpSM18BOuV_e_rea3CPjxw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5474E803.9020504@arin.net> <54989FCA.2020403@umn.edu>
	<CAMDXq5NwkTRg-4mq8OPx_eHWxzOr2HpxwUpPwAFddsXc3aW3DA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5499F375.7050409@umn.edu>
	<CAMDXq5N26R3tEpy6Bq5444jgCPKc=TEhh+YLAE_dkGBZ9HUFaQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5499F8EE.4060901@umn.edu>
	<CAGkMwz4Dc2UVK-eONgYykM__JgvzGpSM18BOuV_e_rea3CPjxw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DE641BEC-CD1C-4A3B-A407-76A5C6684BCD@delong.com>

I?m not part of the OIX discussions, so I certainly won?t be considering anything from OIX that isn?t posted to PPML in any of my deliberations on policy.

Owen

> On Dec 23, 2014, at 20:22 , Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> For future comments from OIX participants, it will also be helpful to include PPML, so any discussion of policy pros and cons can occur directly, and there isn't any further unnecessary back and forth (and potentially delays) due to inconsistent assumptions. (I saw a fair bit of that watching the two independent discussions so far.)
> 
> -Scott
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 1:22 PM David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu <mailto:farmer at umn.edu>> wrote:
> On 12/23/14, 17:08 , Martin Hannigan wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 5:57 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu <mailto:farmer at umn.edu>
> > <mailto:farmer at umn.edu <mailto:farmer at umn.edu>>> wrote:
> ...
> >     I went back and reviewed the thread, there was some support for the
> >     ideas that spawned the proposal, but no specific text was posted at
> >     that time.  Since the Draft Policy and the specific text was posted
> >     there has now been two statements of support and no opposition.
> >
> > Its fair to expect that the OIX commentary, documented in full public
> > view, should count as support. That would be more than two.
> ...
> >     I'd be happy to work toward getting this to San Antonio as a
> >     Recommended Draft Policy.  However, the normal path would be Draft
> >     in San Antonio and then Recommended Draft in San Francisco.  So, to
> >     justify accelerating this policy we need clear and strong support
> >     from the community for this policy.  Lukewarm support with no
> >     opposition is not sufficient to take this to San Antonio as a
> >     Recommended Draft Policy in my opinion as the shepherd.
> >
> > I'm happy to cross post and invade ppml rms style with OIX. That doesn't
> > seem necessary based on the transparency of our discussions.
> 
> Personally, I'm happy to consider OIX commentary.  Would you please
> provide me and PPML a link for the archives?  Maybe a pointer to the
> appropriate threads too.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> --
> ================================================
> David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu <mailto:farmer at umn.edu>
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
> ================================================
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <mailto: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 <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141225/0b6e9d18/attachment.htm>

From hannigan at gmail.com  Thu Dec 25 19:26:33 2014
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2014 19:26:33 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool
	Size per Section 4.4
In-Reply-To: <DE641BEC-CD1C-4A3B-A407-76A5C6684BCD@delong.com>
References: <5474E803.9020504@arin.net> <54989FCA.2020403@umn.edu>
	<CAMDXq5NwkTRg-4mq8OPx_eHWxzOr2HpxwUpPwAFddsXc3aW3DA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5499F375.7050409@umn.edu>
	<CAMDXq5N26R3tEpy6Bq5444jgCPKc=TEhh+YLAE_dkGBZ9HUFaQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5499F8EE.4060901@umn.edu>
	<CAGkMwz4Dc2UVK-eONgYykM__JgvzGpSM18BOuV_e_rea3CPjxw@mail.gmail.com>
	<DE641BEC-CD1C-4A3B-A407-76A5C6684BCD@delong.com>
Message-ID: <692676F1-05AC-4A71-9272-A320CED76E66@gmail.com>


I'll point this list at a public viewable URL to a proper thread there. Not sure why people need to actually subscribe, either way. I also can't force (and won't advocate) people to waste their time like that on either list. 

 There are AC members there. They too can report their observations back to the Politburo. I'm sure you'll be well informed. 

Best,

-M<





> On Dec 25, 2014, at 18:53, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> 
> I?m not part of the OIX discussions, so I certainly won?t be considering anything from OIX that isn?t posted to PPML in any of my deliberations on policy.
> 
> Owen
> 
>> On Dec 23, 2014, at 20:22 , Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> For future comments from OIX participants, it will also be helpful to include PPML, so any discussion of policy pros and cons can occur directly, and there isn't any further unnecessary back and forth (and potentially delays) due to inconsistent assumptions. (I saw a fair bit of that watching the two independent discussions so far.)
>> 
>> -Scott
>>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 1:22 PM David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>>> On 12/23/14, 17:08 , Martin Hannigan wrote:
>>> > On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 5:57 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu
>>> > <mailto:farmer at umn.edu>> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> >     I went back and reviewed the thread, there was some support for the
>>> >     ideas that spawned the proposal, but no specific text was posted at
>>> >     that time.  Since the Draft Policy and the specific text was posted
>>> >     there has now been two statements of support and no opposition.
>>> >
>>> > Its fair to expect that the OIX commentary, documented in full public
>>> > view, should count as support. That would be more than two.
>>> ...
>>> >     I'd be happy to work toward getting this to San Antonio as a
>>> >     Recommended Draft Policy.  However, the normal path would be Draft
>>> >     in San Antonio and then Recommended Draft in San Francisco.  So, to
>>> >     justify accelerating this policy we need clear and strong support
>>> >     from the community for this policy.  Lukewarm support with no
>>> >     opposition is not sufficient to take this to San Antonio as a
>>> >     Recommended Draft Policy in my opinion as the shepherd.
>>> >
>>> > I'm happy to cross post and invade ppml rms style with OIX. That doesn't
>>> > seem necessary based on the transparency of our discussions.
>>> 
>>> Personally, I'm happy to consider OIX commentary.  Would you please
>>> provide me and PPML a link for the archives?  Maybe a pointer to the
>>> appropriate threads too.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> --
>>> ================================================
>>> David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
>>> Office of Information Technology
>>> University of Minnesota
>>> 2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
>>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
>>> ================================================
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PPML
>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141225/6b319237/attachment.htm>

From narten at us.ibm.com  Fri Dec 26 00:53:03 2014
From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 00:53:03 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net
Message-ID: <201412260553.sBQ5r3YW025298@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>

Total of 105 messages in the last 7 days.
 
script run at: Fri Dec 26 00:53:03 EST 2014
 
    Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
 13.33% |   14 | 17.06% |   199164 | sryerse at eclipse-networks.com
  8.57% |    9 |  8.50% |    99194 | tedm at ipinc.net
  8.57% |    9 |  7.51% |    87736 | owen at delong.com
  7.62% |    8 |  7.15% |    83456 | mike at iptrading.com
  8.57% |    9 |  4.83% |    56418 | sethm at rollernet.us
  4.76% |    5 |  6.00% |    70068 | hannigan at gmail.com
  5.71% |    6 |  3.83% |    44677 | jcurran at arin.net
  5.71% |    6 |  3.54% |    41332 | bill at herrin.us
  3.81% |    4 |  4.18% |    48757 | rcarpen at network1.net
  3.81% |    4 |  4.09% |    47776 | info at arin.net
  3.81% |    4 |  3.50% |    40920 | farmer at umn.edu
  0.95% |    1 |  4.82% |    56270 | rudi.daniel at gmail.com
  2.86% |    3 |  1.71% |    19996 | ppml at rs.seastrom.com
  1.90% |    2 |  2.66% |    31034 | frnkblk at iname.com
  1.90% |    2 |  1.92% |    22368 | mueller at syr.edu
  1.90% |    2 |  1.58% |    18425 | athompso at athompso.net
  0.95% |    1 |  2.20% |    25707 | springer at inlandnet.com
  0.95% |    1 |  1.69% |    19770 | mwinters at edwardrose.com
  0.95% |    1 |  1.62% |    18897 | lar at mwtcorp.net
  0.95% |    1 |  1.30% |    15184 | ikiris at gmail.com
  0.95% |    1 |  1.28% |    14948 | leo.vegoda at icann.org
  0.95% |    1 |  1.17% |    13654 | matthew at matthew.at
  0.95% |    1 |  1.14% |    13265 | alh-ietf at tndh.net
  0.95% |    1 |  1.06% |    12395 | scottleibrand at gmail.com
  0.95% |    1 |  0.80% |     9298 | andrew.dul at quark.net
  0.95% |    1 |  0.73% |     8508 | mpetach at netflight.com
  0.95% |    1 |  0.72% |     8392 | john at egh.com
  0.95% |    1 |  0.69% |     8032 | keith at jcc.com
  0.95% |    1 |  0.64% |     7418 | narten at us.ibm.com
  0.95% |    1 |  0.56% |     6583 | gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com
  0.95% |    1 |  0.53% |     6190 | michael at linuxmagic.com
  0.95% |    1 |  0.52% |     6072 | mysidia at gmail.com
  0.95% |    1 |  0.49% |     5735 | ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
100.00% |  105 |100.00% |  1167639 | Total



From Keith at jcc.com  Fri Dec 26 08:21:44 2014
From: Keith at jcc.com (Keith W. Hare)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 08:21:44 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] What the heck is OIX? (was RE: Draft Policy
 ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4)
Message-ID: <62D20B771F8F9C4EA8AEE574FF38696287A14BD8AD@mercury.jcc.com>

Martin,

So, what the heck is OIX, and why do I care about discussions there?

A quick web search for OIX gives me:


?         Open Identify Exchange

?         Online Incentives Exchange

?         Open Identity Exchange UK

?         Open-IX Association

?         Etc.

The Urban Dictionary defines Oix as ?Officially a word you are allowed to use in scrabble when you are out of letters at the very end and this is all you have left.?

From what I know about OIX without diving into random web pages, this definition seems the most appropriate.

Keith

From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Martin Hannigan
Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2014 7:27 PM
To: Owen DeLong; David Farmer; Scott Leibrand
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4


I'll point this list at a public viewable URL to a proper thread there. Not sure why people need to actually subscribe, either way. I also can't force (and won't advocate) people to waste their time like that on either list.

 There are AC members there. They too can report their observations back to the Politburo. I'm sure you'll be well informed.

Best,

-M<




On Dec 25, 2014, at 18:53, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com<mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
I?m not part of the OIX discussions, so I certainly won?t be considering anything from OIX that isn?t posted to PPML in any of my deliberations on policy.

Owen

On Dec 23, 2014, at 20:22 , Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com<mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com>> wrote:

For future comments from OIX participants, it will also be helpful to include PPML, so any discussion of policy pros and cons can occur directly, and there isn't any further unnecessary back and forth (and potentially delays) due to inconsistent assumptions. (I saw a fair bit of that watching the two independent discussions so far.)

-Scott
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 1:22 PM David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu<mailto:farmer at umn.edu>> wrote:
On 12/23/14, 17:08 , Martin Hannigan wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 5:57 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu<mailto:farmer at umn.edu>
> <mailto:farmer at umn.edu<mailto:farmer at umn.edu>>> wrote:
...
>     I went back and reviewed the thread, there was some support for the
>     ideas that spawned the proposal, but no specific text was posted at
>     that time.  Since the Draft Policy and the specific text was posted
>     there has now been two statements of support and no opposition.
>
> Its fair to expect that the OIX commentary, documented in full public
> view, should count as support. That would be more than two.
...
>     I'd be happy to work toward getting this to San Antonio as a
>     Recommended Draft Policy.  However, the normal path would be Draft
>     in San Antonio and then Recommended Draft in San Francisco.  So, to
>     justify accelerating this policy we need clear and strong support
>     from the community for this policy.  Lukewarm support with no
>     opposition is not sufficient to take this to San Antonio as a
>     Recommended Draft Policy in my opinion as the shepherd.
>
> I'm happy to cross post and invade ppml rms style with OIX. That doesn't
> seem necessary based on the transparency of our discussions.

Personally, I'm happy to consider OIX commentary.  Would you please
provide me and PPML a link for the archives?  Maybe a pointer to the
appropriate threads too.

Thanks

--
================================================
David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu<mailto:farmer at umn.edu>
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net<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.
_______________________________________________
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/20141226/e636d95f/attachment.htm>

From mpetach at netflight.com  Fri Dec 26 08:54:02 2014
From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 05:54:02 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] What the heck is OIX? (was RE: Draft Policy
 ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4)
In-Reply-To: <62D20B771F8F9C4EA8AEE574FF38696287A14BD8AD@mercury.jcc.com>
References: <62D20B771F8F9C4EA8AEE574FF38696287A14BD8AD@mercury.jcc.com>
Message-ID: <CAEmG1=qb5ZmwTL2E08AiAw1VkJ99DZvCCtv4rZEL6Dm7pY1NAA@mail.gmail.com>

Keith--it's a way to cite support from 3rd-party
elements that aren't presented here, allowing
one to claim support without the rest of the
community having an easy way to debate
or disagree with that support.  Somewhat
along the same lines as Steve's appeal
to the sentiments of the unvoiced masses
of small businesses.

Not that I'm disparaging the work Open-IX
does; it's a wonderful organization.  But to
cite support from unrelated mailing lists
seems akin to saying "but all my friends
on Facebook say I should be given a /8
without justification."  It may in fact be true
that all your friends on facebook say that;
but is it relevant, and should it carry any
weight in the debates here?  That's much
harder to pin down.

Putting it the other way around...would the
nice people on Open-IX change their rules
based on the comments that are made here?
Or would they be dismissed as not germane
to the decision?  For better or for worse, I think
there's a strong current of "if they want their
voice to matter, they can come here and say
it where the rest of us are" present in just about
every purpose-specific mailing list.

If one were to create a mailing list of "concerned
small businesses advocating the propagation of
the internet", and on that mailing list, there was
unequivocal support for a flat IPv4 allocation
scheme; every org-ID gets a /16, regardless
of need (no matter how big or how small the
org), and all other space shall immediately
be reclaimed and redistributed to the rest
of the entities in the region--why, I dare say
we'd be quick to dismiss that mailing list
archive as not relevant, and not sufficient
evidence of community support to warrant
reclaiming massive amounts of IP space
from existing registrants.

In short (well, no, not really--I don't really seem
to do brevity well at all)--I think we need to be
very careful of accepting 3rd party support as
anything other than hearsay, and accord it the
same status as "hallway conversations" at
ARIN meetings; while they're nice to have,
and can help guide the shepherds in adjusting
wording of proposals, I don't think they should
carry any weight in the voting and decision
process.

Thanks!

Matt




On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Keith W. Hare <Keith at jcc.com> wrote:

> Martin,
>
>
>
> So, what the heck is OIX, and why do I care about discussions there?
>
>
>
> A quick web search for OIX gives me:
>
>
>
> ?         Open Identify Exchange
>
> ?         Online Incentives Exchange
>
> ?         Open Identity Exchange UK
>
> ?         Open-IX Association
>
> ?         Etc.
>
>
>
> The Urban Dictionary defines Oix as ?Officially a word you are allowed to
> use in scrabble when you are out of letters at the very end and this is all
> you have left.?
>
>
>
> From what I know about OIX without diving into random web pages, this
> definition seems the most appropriate.
>
>
>
> Keith
>
>
>
> *From:* arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] *On
> Behalf Of *Martin Hannigan
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 25, 2014 7:27 PM
> *To:* Owen DeLong; David Farmer; Scott Leibrand
> *Cc:* arin-ppml at arin.net
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI
> Pool Size per Section 4.4
>
>
>
>
>
> I'll point this list at a public viewable URL to a proper thread there.
> Not sure why people need to actually subscribe, either way. I also can't
> force (and won't advocate) people to waste their time like that on either
> list.
>
>
>
>  There are AC members there. They too can report their observations back
> to the Politburo. I'm sure you'll be well informed.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> -M<
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 25, 2014, at 18:53, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
> I?m not part of the OIX discussions, so I certainly won?t be considering
> anything from OIX that isn?t posted to PPML in any of my deliberations on
> policy.
>
>
>
> Owen
>
>
>
> On Dec 23, 2014, at 20:22 , Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> For future comments from OIX participants, it will also be helpful to
> include PPML, so any discussion of policy pros and cons can occur directly,
> and there isn't any further unnecessary back and forth (and potentially
> delays) due to inconsistent assumptions. (I saw a fair bit of that watching
> the two independent discussions so far.)
>
> -Scott
>
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 1:22 PM David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>
> On 12/23/14, 17:08 , Martin Hannigan wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 5:57 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu
> > <mailto:farmer at umn.edu>> wrote:
> ...
> >     I went back and reviewed the thread, there was some support for the
> >     ideas that spawned the proposal, but no specific text was posted at
> >     that time.  Since the Draft Policy and the specific text was posted
> >     there has now been two statements of support and no opposition.
> >
> > Its fair to expect that the OIX commentary, documented in full public
> > view, should count as support. That would be more than two.
> ...
> >     I'd be happy to work toward getting this to San Antonio as a
> >     Recommended Draft Policy.  However, the normal path would be Draft
> >     in San Antonio and then Recommended Draft in San Francisco.  So, to
> >     justify accelerating this policy we need clear and strong support
> >     from the community for this policy.  Lukewarm support with no
> >     opposition is not sufficient to take this to San Antonio as a
> >     Recommended Draft Policy in my opinion as the shepherd.
> >
> > I'm happy to cross post and invade ppml rms style with OIX. That doesn't
> > seem necessary based on the transparency of our discussions.
>
> Personally, I'm happy to consider OIX commentary.  Would you please
> provide me and PPML a link for the archives?  Maybe a pointer to the
> appropriate threads too.
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> ================================================
> David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
> ================================================
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141226/e7b07b72/attachment.htm>

From mueller at syr.edu  Fri Dec 26 09:30:16 2014
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:30:16 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of
	Region	Use
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGXOureQZWAkXt-jasvXAOzQZA4-ogAOU64HEJ-ONAYBxg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <549AE7FF.6090108@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW1KYrTK8WX9or3-AFDqun1_D5GQeF1Gs66Oc5uu7yJog@mail.gmail.com>
	<C7C31AAE-CBF5-461E-AB0D-C80E416C2353@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGXOureQZWAkXt-jasvXAOzQZA4-ogAOU64HEJ-ONAYBxg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <21bc98fd5f0643789fd267a9b7dab5aa@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
> On Behalf Of William Herrin
> 
> I'm don't think there is such a change but there are a few things that jump
> out at me as being particularly offensive.
> 
> 1. This issue is not a concern for ARIN number resources overall. Now and for
> the foreseeable future it frankly only matters for IPv4 addresses. Crafting a

Actually the policy was written primarily with v6 in mind, because the v4 free pool will soon be exhausted, but the principle should apply to all number spaces. And I believe that the only reason you oppose this is the false and contrary-to-principle idea that North Americans "own" their remaining v4 numbers simply by virtue of the fact they happened to run out slower than other regions. 

> No one here
> cares whether AS numbers or IPv6 addresses are used out-region and

I am glad you have conceded this because it dispenses with the "this is all contrary to ICP2" nonsense. If AS numbers and IPv6 numbers can be obtained from one RIR for global use then there is no reason why v4 numbers can't be - the principle is the same. 

> 2. I disagree with spinning it as an existing policy flaw. There's a ARIN -
> implementation- flaw here. Classically and consistent with the spirit of ICP2,
> the RIRs allow minor outregion use of addresses that's incidental to an in-
> region operation. And you know what? You haven't been the slightest bit shy

I think John has refuted this.

> 3. Registry shopping is a bad bad bad idea. It defeats and is directly contrary
> to the whole ICP2 spirit of LOCAL self-governance. As written, this policy

I don't agree. I think uneven runout and the resulting arbitrage has shown us why territorial registries are a bad bad bad idea. There is some justification for having more localized participatory structures to deal with language differences and to improve access, but many companies that are trans-regional have every right to decide which of these regions is most convenient to them and rely exclusively on that. Asking every company with a presence in more than one region to duplicate (or triplicate or quadruplicate, etc.) their investment in monitoring and obtaining numbers is just bad bad bad bad policy. I have no idea what you think it accomplishes, other than hoarding for a particular region. Your idea that this is about "local self-governance" is a distortion and corruption of the original idea of address registries. They are not territorially exclusive governments with "sovereignty" and the users within them are not territorially exclusive either. This is a globalized world and the internet was designed to be global. Stop fighting over the remaining crumbs of IPv4 and face that fact.

--MM



From mueller at syr.edu  Fri Dec 26 09:37:04 2014
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:37:04 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVuA07GJprQjvX2HG8bOfo3YTiVQGPX1kn0qg7Wd7dHtw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1412231454340.55903@mail.inlandnet.com>
	<1141224003801.567A-100000@joonya.egh.com>
	<CAP-guGVuA07GJprQjvX2HG8bOfo3YTiVQGPX1kn0qg7Wd7dHtw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a5eea5b30ab7436785c043181a8fe1c3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>

I don't think you're getting the concept of small, Bill. Take a look at  the statistics that were gathered about what proportion of the number space a number of /18s and below would consist of. It's less than 10% of the overall transfer market, and an even smaller portion of the overall address space.  Even with /16s I think the number was 17%. 

Let's also not forget this is about transfers, not initial allocations from the free pool. In other words, the numbers involved are already out there, being hoarded. This policy just makes it a lot easier to free them up for more intensive use. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
> On Behalf Of William Herrin
> Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 12:25 PM
> To: John Santos
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness
> 
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 1:00 AM, John Santos <JOHN at egh.com> wrote:
> > Oppose 2014-14
> >
> > 1) /16 is not "small"
> 
> This is the main problem I have with 2014-14. Start with /24's or maybe /22's
> and keep track of what happens to them. Then use the knowledge gained to
> formulate a better policy when expanding the process to larger blocks.
> 
> I think it also needs a limit on the number of untested transfers in which an
> organization can participate in a given time period.
> 
> The text itself needs some cleanup to deal with the more obvious unintended
> consequences, but the /16 boundary is what kills it for me.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Seth Mattinen <sethm at rollernet.us>
> wrote:
> > Then make it /18 to align with the fee schedule definition of "small".
> 
> I ran a regional ISP on two /18's. You're not getting the concept of "small."
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us Owner,
> Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> May I solve your
> unusual networking challenges?
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public
> Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage 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 rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com  Fri Dec 26 10:43:36 2014
From: rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com (Brett Frankenberger)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 09:43:36 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change
 Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate
In-Reply-To: <549AE80D.3080206@arin.net>
References: <549AE80D.3080206@arin.net>
Message-ID: <20141226154336.GA22311@panix.com>

On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 11:21:33AM -0500, ARIN wrote:
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17
> Change Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate
> 
> On 18 December 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) recommended
> ARIN-2014-17 for adoption, making it a Recommended Draft Policy.
> 
> Policy statement:
> 
> Replace Section 4.2.4.1
> 
> ISPs must have efficiently utilized all allocations, in aggregate, to at
> least 80% and at least 50% of every allocation in order to receive
> additional space. This includes all space reassigned to their customers.
> 
> Replace Section 4.3.6.1
> 
> End-users must have efficiently utilized all assignments, in aggregate, to
> at least 80% and at least 50% of every assignment in order to receive
> additional space, and must provide ARIN with utilization details.

Support.  This reduces disparate treatment for entities with identical
allocations and utilization, just because one entity got a /16 and the
other got two /17s.  I might have preferred eliminating the disparate
treatment completley, but the addition of the "50% of every
allocation/assignment" requirement is a reasonable balance between
treating entities with the same amount of space identically, and the
concerns raised about entities receiving an allocation/assignment,
still being above 80%, and being eligible to request and receive
another one the next day with the same justification.  I support this
policy as written.

     -- Brett


From bill at herrin.us  Fri Dec 26 12:06:59 2014
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 12:06:59 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <a5eea5b30ab7436785c043181a8fe1c3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1412231454340.55903@mail.inlandnet.com>
	<1141224003801.567A-100000@joonya.egh.com>
	<CAP-guGVuA07GJprQjvX2HG8bOfo3YTiVQGPX1kn0qg7Wd7dHtw@mail.gmail.com>
	<a5eea5b30ab7436785c043181a8fe1c3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGWtBkmxcBL_XLc+dKwNq86UQ_MrUN+80-jWrwGD1ai5sA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> I don't think you're getting the concept of small, Bill. Take a look at
> the statistics that were gathered about what proportion of the number
> space a number of /18s and below would consist of. It's less than
> 10% of the overall transfer market, and an even smaller portion of
> the overall address space.  Even with /16s I think the number was 17%.

Milton,

So? Hardly surprising since folks who want /24's can still readily
obtain them from ARIN.

You aren't getting anywhere with "small" defined as /16 and you won't
get anywhere with small defined as /18. Many of your opponents seem
willing to hear you out with small defined as /22. Do you want to make
progress on this issue? Any progress at all?

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
May I solve your unusual networking challenges?


From bill at herrin.us  Fri Dec 26 12:15:06 2014
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 12:15:06 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of Region
	Use
In-Reply-To: <21bc98fd5f0643789fd267a9b7dab5aa@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <549AE7FF.6090108@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW1KYrTK8WX9or3-AFDqun1_D5GQeF1Gs66Oc5uu7yJog@mail.gmail.com>
	<C7C31AAE-CBF5-461E-AB0D-C80E416C2353@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGXOureQZWAkXt-jasvXAOzQZA4-ogAOU64HEJ-ONAYBxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<21bc98fd5f0643789fd267a9b7dab5aa@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGUmVBWG4Ougy5EteSObcHFJ=UNOHTv6kcqxQne=wE4DpQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> I think uneven runout and the resulting arbitrage has shown us why
> territorial registries are a bad bad bad idea.

If this is as serious a problem as you suggest, the solution is to
reintegrate the registries into an operation with a single, consistent
set of policies. Registry shopping is the cure that kills the patient.


> Actually the policy was written primarily with v6 in mind, because
> the v4 free pool will soon be exhausted, but the principle should
> apply to all number spaces.

I couldn't disagree with your reasoning more if I tried.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
May I solve your unusual networking challenges?


From andrew.dul at quark.net  Fri Dec 26 12:43:22 2014
From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 09:43:22 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool
 Size per Section 4.4
In-Reply-To: <54989FCA.2020403@umn.edu>
References: <5474E803.9020504@arin.net> <54989FCA.2020403@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <549D9E3A.5030108@quark.net>

David,

I'd like to propose the following rewrite of this section as replacement
text for ARIN-2014-21.  I believe this rewrite deals with the clarity
issues that you have noted.  I believe this rewrite does not change
operational practice (other than the /15 replacing the current /16), but
provides some needed clarity in this section from multiple amendments
over the years. 


================

*4.4. Micro-allocation*

ARIN will make IPv4 micro-allocations to critical infrastructure
providers of the Internet, including public exchange points, core DNS
service providers (e.g. ICANN-sanctioned root and ccTLD operators) as
well as the RIRs and IANA. 

These allocations will be no smaller than a /24. Multiple allocations
may be granted when operational need can be documented.

ARIN will place an equivalent of a /15 of IPv4 address space in a
permanent reserve for micro-allocations and shall use sparse allocations
practices where applicable.

*4.4.1 Internet Exchange Points*

Exchange point allocations MUST be allocated from specific blocks
reserved only for this purpose. All other micro-allocations WILL be
allocated out of other blocks reserved for micro-allocation purposes.
ARIN will make a list of these blocks publicly available.

Exchange point operators must provide justification for the allocation,
including: connection policy, location, other participants (minimum of
three total), ASN, and contact information. This policy does not
preclude exchange point operators from requesting address space under
other policies.

*4.4.2 gTLD Allocations*

ICANN-sanctioned gTLD operators may justify up to the equivalent of an
IPv4 /23 block for each authorized new gTLD, allocated from the free
pool or received via transfer, but not from the blocks reserved in
section 4.4. This limit of a /23 equivalent per gTLD does not apply to
gTLD allocations made under previous policy.

*4.4.3 Other Critical Infrastructure*

Other critical infrastructure, such as ICANN-sanctioned root and ccTLD
operators, as well as the RIRs and IANA, may receive allocations from
ARIN, when operational need can be demonstrated.

 

================

On 12/22/2014 2:48 PM, David Farmer wrote:
> So far there has been very little discussion on this policy.
>
> Therefore, as one of the AC shepherds for this policy I would like to
> initiate some discussion of this policy.  Here are a few questions for
> the ARIN community to think about and provide feedback on;
>
> - The current CI reservation is for all CI not just IXPs, the problem
> statement discusses growth primarily in the IXPs as justification to
> expand the reservation.  Should we split off a separate reservation
> pool for IXPs?  Or, keep the current common CI pool?
>
> - ARIN-2011-4 the policy that made the original CI reservation had a
> Policy Term of 36 Months following implementation, but this was not in
> the policy text itself and therefore did not get included in the NRPM.
>
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_4.html
>
> If applicable, this would have expired July 2014.  So, should there be
> expiration date included in this policy text?  If there should be no
> expiration date, should we explicitly note the removal of any
> expiration date in the discussion of this policy?
>
> - There was discussion of smaller and larger than /24 IXP allocations,
> like /26 on the smaller side and that some very large IXPs are
> starting to need as large as a /22.  Also discussed was, sparse
> allocation for IXPs to allow expansion without renumbering.  Should
> this policy includes any changes along these lines?  Why or why not?
>
> - Should we try to get this to the PPC at NANOG 63 in San Antonio as a
> Recommended Draft Policy?  Or should it wait go to the PPM at ARIN 35
> in San Francisco as a Recommended Draft Policy?  What about ARIN free
> pool run-out timing?
>
> Do you support the policy as written, if not are there any changes
> that could be made that would allow you to support the policy?
>
> Thanks.
>
> On 11/25/14, 14:35 , ARIN wrote:
>> On 20 November 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
>> "ARIN-prop-213 Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4" as a Draft
>> Policy.
>>
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21 is below and can be found at:
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_21.html
>>
>> You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft
>> Policy 2014-21 on the Public Policy Mailing List.
>>
>> The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance
>> of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource
>> Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are:
>>
>>    * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
>>    * Technically Sound
>>    * Supported by the Community
>>
>> The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) 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,
>>
>> Communications and Member Services
>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>>
>>
>> ## * ##
>>
>>
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21
>> Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4
>>
>> Date: 25 November 2014
>>
>> Problem Statement:
>>
>> At the time that this section of policy was written, IXP growth in North
>> America was stagnant. Efforts of late have increased significantly
>> within the IXP standards and other communities to improve critical
>> infrastructure in North America. This effort is paying dividends and we
>> project that a /16 will not be enough to continue to improve global
>> interconnect conditions and support needed IXP CI infrastructure.
>>
>> Policy statement:
>>
>> Change to text in section 4.4 Micro Allocations:
>>
>> Current text:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Proposed text to replace current text entirely:
>>
>> ARIN will place an equivalent of a /15 of IPv4 address space in a
>> reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4.
>>
>> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141226/446b7896/attachment.htm>

From Keith at jcc.com  Fri Dec 26 13:03:21 2014
From: Keith at jcc.com (Keith W. Hare)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 13:03:21 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] What the heck is OIX? (was RE: Draft Policy
 ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4)
In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=qb5ZmwTL2E08AiAw1VkJ99DZvCCtv4rZEL6Dm7pY1NAA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <62D20B771F8F9C4EA8AEE574FF38696287A14BD8AD@mercury.jcc.com>
	<CAEmG1=qb5ZmwTL2E08AiAw1VkJ99DZvCCtv4rZEL6Dm7pY1NAA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <62D20B771F8F9C4EA8AEE574FF38696287A14BD8B8@mercury.jcc.com>

So OIX is Open-IX, which might be www.open-ix.org<http://www.open-ix.org>. If so, it looks to be a consortium that is putting together requirements for data centers and has some sort of certification program.

In the poking I?ve done, I haven?t found any publicly viewable discussions, so for the moment, I have to put alleged OIX discussions in the same bucket as the alleged  volumes that legacy resource holders are speaking by their silence.

Keith

From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Matthew Petach
Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 8:54 AM
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] What the heck is OIX? (was RE: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4)


Keith--it's a way to cite support from 3rd-party
elements that aren't presented here, allowing
one to claim support without the rest of the
community having an easy way to debate
or disagree with that support.  Somewhat
along the same lines as Steve's appeal
to the sentiments of the unvoiced masses
of small businesses.
Not that I'm disparaging the work Open-IX
does; it's a wonderful organization.  But to
cite support from unrelated mailing lists
seems akin to saying "but all my friends
on Facebook say I should be given a /8
without justification."  It may in fact be true
that all your friends on facebook say that;
but is it relevant, and should it carry any
weight in the debates here?  That's much
harder to pin down.
Putting it the other way around...would the
nice people on Open-IX change their rules
based on the comments that are made here?
Or would they be dismissed as not germane
to the decision?  For better or for worse, I think
there's a strong current of "if they want their
voice to matter, they can come here and say
it where the rest of us are" present in just about
every purpose-specific mailing list.
If one were to create a mailing list of "concerned
small businesses advocating the propagation of
the internet", and on that mailing list, there was
unequivocal support for a flat IPv4 allocation
scheme; every org-ID gets a /16, regardless
of need (no matter how big or how small the
org), and all other space shall immediately
be reclaimed and redistributed to the rest
of the entities in the region--why, I dare say
we'd be quick to dismiss that mailing list
archive as not relevant, and not sufficient
evidence of community support to warrant
reclaiming massive amounts of IP space
from existing registrants.
In short (well, no, not really--I don't really seem
to do brevity well at all)--I think we need to be
very careful of accepting 3rd party support as
anything other than hearsay, and accord it the
same status as "hallway conversations" at
ARIN meetings; while they're nice to have,
and can help guide the shepherds in adjusting
wording of proposals, I don't think they should
carry any weight in the voting and decision
process.

Thanks!
Matt


On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Keith W. Hare <Keith at jcc.com<mailto:Keith at jcc.com>> wrote:
Martin,

So, what the heck is OIX, and why do I care about discussions there?

A quick web search for OIX gives me:


?         Open Identify Exchange

?         Online Incentives Exchange

?         Open Identity Exchange UK

?         Open-IX Association

?         Etc.

The Urban Dictionary defines Oix as ?Officially a word you are allowed to use in scrabble when you are out of letters at the very end and this is all you have left.?

From what I know about OIX without diving into random web pages, this definition seems the most appropriate.

Keith

From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>] On Behalf Of Martin Hannigan
Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2014 7:27 PM
To: Owen DeLong; David Farmer; Scott Leibrand
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4


I'll point this list at a public viewable URL to a proper thread there. Not sure why people need to actually subscribe, either way. I also can't force (and won't advocate) people to waste their time like that on either list.

 There are AC members there. They too can report their observations back to the Politburo. I'm sure you'll be well informed.

Best,

-M<



On Dec 25, 2014, at 18:53, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com<mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
I?m not part of the OIX discussions, so I certainly won?t be considering anything from OIX that isn?t posted to PPML in any of my deliberations on policy.

Owen

On Dec 23, 2014, at 20:22 , Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com<mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com>> wrote:

For future comments from OIX participants, it will also be helpful to include PPML, so any discussion of policy pros and cons can occur directly, and there isn't any further unnecessary back and forth (and potentially delays) due to inconsistent assumptions. (I saw a fair bit of that watching the two independent discussions so far.)

-Scott
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 1:22 PM David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu<mailto:farmer at umn.edu>> wrote:
On 12/23/14, 17:08 , Martin Hannigan wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 5:57 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu<mailto:farmer at umn.edu>
> <mailto:farmer at umn.edu<mailto:farmer at umn.edu>>> wrote:
...
>     I went back and reviewed the thread, there was some support for the
>     ideas that spawned the proposal, but no specific text was posted at
>     that time.  Since the Draft Policy and the specific text was posted
>     there has now been two statements of support and no opposition.
>
> Its fair to expect that the OIX commentary, documented in full public
> view, should count as support. That would be more than two.
...
>     I'd be happy to work toward getting this to San Antonio as a
>     Recommended Draft Policy.  However, the normal path would be Draft
>     in San Antonio and then Recommended Draft in San Francisco.  So, to
>     justify accelerating this policy we need clear and strong support
>     from the community for this policy.  Lukewarm support with no
>     opposition is not sufficient to take this to San Antonio as a
>     Recommended Draft Policy in my opinion as the shepherd.
>
> I'm happy to cross post and invade ppml rms style with OIX. That doesn't
> seem necessary based on the transparency of our discussions.

Personally, I'm happy to consider OIX commentary.  Would you please
provide me and PPML a link for the archives?  Maybe a pointer to the
appropriate threads too.

Thanks

--
================================================
David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu<mailto:farmer at umn.edu>
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815<tel:1-612-626-0815>
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952<tel:1-612-812-9952>
================================================
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net<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.
_______________________________________________
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.


_______________________________________________
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/20141226/55f4fb54/attachment.htm>

From lsawyer at gci.com  Fri Dec 26 13:29:40 2014
From: lsawyer at gci.com (Leif Sawyer)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 18:29:40 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change
 Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate
In-Reply-To: <549AE80D.3080206@arin.net>
References: <549AE80D.3080206@arin.net>
Message-ID: <EDF941B230F4C446826CF893A9C8CE590C41B5@ex-mbx-prd02.gci.com>


I fully support the draft policy as written below.  

Leif Sawyer

________________________________________
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] on behalf of ARIN [info at arin.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 7:21 AM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate

Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17
Change Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate

On 18 December 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) recommended
ARIN-2014-17 for adoption, making it a Recommended Draft Policy.

ARIN-2014-17 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_17.html

You are encouraged to discuss Draft Policy 2014-17 on the PPML prior to
the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Consultation at NANOG 63 in San Antonio
in February 2015. Both the discussion on the list and at the meeting
will be used by the ARIN Advisory Council to determine the 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,

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


## * ##


Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17
Change Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate

Date: 19 October 2014

AC's assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number
Resource Policy:

This proposal enables fair and impartial number resource administration
by removing an impediment to additional allocations seen by some
organizations due to the shortening of the assignment window to three
months and the gradual reduction of minimum block size over the past 5
years. This draft proposal applies equally to all organizations and now
requires that any netblock show at least 50% utilization before an
additional block can be allocated or assigned. The policy is clear and
implementable as written. This proposal is technically sound. There are
no technical issues which are raised by changing the utilization
definition within the NRPM. This proposal is supported by the community.
Support for this draft proposal has been growing as it has been
discussed. Additional support from the community was seen as issues
which were brought to the attention of the community by the first staff
and legal assessment have been mitigated.

Problem Statement:

Current ARIN policy calculates utilization on a per allocation basis
rather than in aggregate. This method of determining utilization may
cause some organizations to be unable to qualify for additional address
blocks despite attempting to use their resource allocations as best as
possible. This issue has been exacerbated in the past couple of years
due to the 3-month allocation window which causes organizations to
receive smaller non-expandable allocations rather than a larger aggregate.

For example, if an organization has 4 x /22 and 3 of them are utilized
100% and the fourth utilized at 75%, an additional allocation request
would be denied. However, an organization with a single /20 utilized at
80% would have less efficient utilization but would be eligible to
receive additional space.

Policy statement:

Replace Section 4.2.4.1

ISPs must have efficiently utilized all allocations, in aggregate, to at
least 80% and at least 50% of every allocation in order to receive
additional space. This includes all space reassigned to their customers.

Replace Section 4.3.6.1

End-users must have efficiently utilized all assignments, in aggregate,
to at least 80% and at least 50% of every assignment in order to receive
additional space, and must provide ARIN with utilization details.

Timetable for implementation: Immediate

#####

ARIN STAFF ASSESSMENT

Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17
Change Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate
Date of Assessment: November 2014

1. Summary (Staff Understanding)

This policy removes the current requirement to have efficiently utilized
all previous allocations and assignments, and 80% of the most recent
one, and replaces it with the requirement to have efficiently utilized
all allocations and assignments in aggregate, to at least 80% overall,
with at least a 50% utilization of every allocated or assigned block.

2. Comments

A. ARIN Staff Comments

Based on staff experience, the 80% utilization rate of the last block
has been periodically problematic for smaller ISPs, but not for medium
to larger ISPs. Staff has seen situations where a small ISP with a /22
may need to issue a /24 to a customer but not have any available, not be
at 80% utilized, and therefore, not be able to request additional space.

This policy could be implemented as written.

B. ARIN General Counsel - Legal Assessment

The policy does not present material legal issues. Allocation rules to
address concerns of small ISP's indicate ARIN's continued attempts to
balance the needs of stewardship with the needs of different sectors.

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 internal procedures
  ? Staff training

4. Proposal/Draft Policy Text Assessed

Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17 Change Utilization Requirements from
last-allocation to total-aggregate
Date: 19 October 2014
Problem Statement:
Current ARIN policy calculates utilization on a per allocation basis
rather than in aggregate. This method of determining utilization may
cause some organizations to be unable to qualify for additional address
blocks despite attempting to use their resource allocations as best as
possible. This issue has been exacerbated in the past couple of years
due to the 3-month allocation window which causes organizations to
receive smaller non-expandable allocations rather than a larger aggregate.
For example, if an organization has 4 x /22 and 3 of them are utilized
100% and the fourth utilized at 75%, an additional allocation request
would be denied. However, an organization with a single /20 utilized at
80% would have less efficient utilization but would be eligible to
receive additional space.
Policy statement:
Replace Section 4.2.4.1
ISPs must have efficiently utilized all allocations, in aggregate, to at
least 80% and at least 50% of every allocation in order to receive
additional space. This includes all space reassigned to their customers.
Replace Section 4.3.6.1
End-users must have efficiently utilized all assignments, in aggregate,
to at least 80% and at least 50% of every assignment in order to receive
additional space, and must provide ARIN with utilization details.
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.





From hannigan at gmail.com  Fri Dec 26 14:29:57 2014
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:29:57 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] What is Open-IX and why does it matter? Was: Re: What
 the heck is OIX? (was RE: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI
 Pool Size per Section 4.4)
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5PPwkS8ofNZHjRQfjwHcgF30UqsSEsp-akAgTA_GDc2xw@mail.gmail.com>

Keith,

Open-IX is trade association. It operates the association on behalf of
dues-paying members and provides a framework, funding and legal cover (G&A,
anti-trust) for standards development related to interconnection; IXP and
Data center specific. The members are primarily peering coordinators, their
data center equivalents, data center operators, IXP operators and anyone
with a reasonable interest in interconnection. The Association has made an
anti-trust related NCRPA filing, is incorporated in Delaware, is approved
by the USG under 501c6, is Open Stand compliant, is operating in compliance
with the law as well as operating the first community organized neutral
interconnection conference in April 2015 http://www.open-ix.org/summit1/
Open-IX is driven by independent committees.

The internet has three buckets of operational importance; real estate,
energy and interconnection. OIX was founded to focus on the third,
currently competitively-lacking aspect of the network, Interconnection.
Interconnection has lacked in data center standards to make it reliable and
efficient. It's too concentrated in some aspects e.g. a single building
failure can kill a whole region of the country. Who cares? Hopefully you
do.

Standards typically drive markets in a direction the customers want (e.g.
dog wagging the tail) and the Association underscores the competition
aspect. You can see some of the results here:
http://www.open-ix.org/certification/directory/ and you can view some of
the effects on openness, transparency and competition created with OIX by
clicking the compliance links on the right hand side of the page (pricing
transparency, government request transparency, etc.)

ARINs focus is number resource policy. Open-IXs focus is interconnection
standards. The two will collide from time to time since numbers and ASNs
are needed to operate interconnection, but from their respectful corners.

    Open-IX Website:          http://www.open-ix.org/
    NCRPA filing:                 http://bit.ly/1tm0Ysu
    Open-IX 501c6 notice:   http://bit.ly/144KIRh
    Exempt Filing:                http://bit.ly/13K1Hro
    Finance Reports:           http://www.open-ix.org/finance


There's no reason or need to require 175 odd Open-IX members to join an
ARIN mailing list to express support in one fashion or another or
vice-versa. It seems like an artificial roadblock for each community. Many
trade associations establish process for reliable input in compliance with
their standards through MoUs or other agreements e.g. Metro Ethernet Forum
and others.

I checked. You're right. You can't find the discussions. I'll ask the web
team to make sure mailing list archives are easily findable on the website.
Mea culpa, that's an oversight. We're growing rapidly and missed that
unintentionally. In the meantime, this should work
http://mailman.open-ix.org/pipermail/public/

Hope that was helpful. Questions offline or --> over there at OIX.

Best,

Martin Hannigan (marty at open-ix.org)
Open-IX Association/Treasurer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141226/14babeea/attachment.htm>

From springer at inlandnet.com  Fri Dec 26 18:01:26 2014
From: springer at inlandnet.com (John Springer)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 15:01:26 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <1141224003801.567A-100000@joonya.egh.com>
References: <1141224003801.567A-100000@joonya.egh.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1412261040520.95971@mail.inlandnet.com>

Hi John,

Thank you for the clear statement of opposition. Please allow me to 
address the points you offer inline.

On Wed, 24 Dec 2014, John Santos wrote:

>
> Oppose 2014-14
>
> 1) /16 is not "small"

This has actually been mentioned before, by several commentators. The 
problem with "big" and "not "small"" is that they require reference to a 
datum, which WRT to 2014-14 has not been provided. Owen Delong provided 
a fair attempt to come to grips with what big or small actually mean as 
percentages of the number and size of transfers that have occured since 
the STLS policy was adopted in 2009, here:

http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2014-October/029238.html
I can provide the attachments, if you wish.

I welcome analyses that put different metrics forward. In this analysis, 
transfers between /16 and /24 constitute 17.47% of the address space 
transfered. That is smaller than the 82.53% represented by transfers 
between /16 + 1 /32 and /11, but some commentators feel that it is not 
small enough for the unspoken datum. Several thresholds have been 
proposed. A rewrite is underway and input as to threshold is most welcome. 
/20 is trending near the mean, IMO.

> 2) The problem the proposal purports to solve hasn't actually been
>  demonstrated. "ARIN staff [...] is spending scarce staff time on needs 
> testing of small transfers."

You pose an interesting procedural question. In our considerations of 
advancing prop-204 to Draft Policy, the question of the problem statement 
was specifically discussed and it was agreed that the community had spoken 
"loud and clear" that request turn around times are too long. We can 
quibble about the author's linkage, but we didn't ignore this and the 
motion to advance passed.

Certain AC actions may be petitioned, 
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html, PART THREE PDP PETITION PROCESS, but 
I don't think failure to convince everyone that the problem statement is 
clear is one of them. In fact, the petition process appears to be 
specifically directed at failure to advance things. There does not appear 
to be provision to petition advancement of a policy proposal to Draft 
Policy, which is what you seem to be suggesting here.

> Obviously, doing the necessary checking
>  requires staff time, but is it a significant amount?  Is it taking much
>  longer than it used to?  Is it costing ARIN a lot of money in staff
>  wages and overhead to do these assessments, or is it lost in the noise?

If 17.47% is not small, is it significant? There definitely was a lot of 
comment from the community in Chicago that it is taking too long to turn 
requests around. What is the datum for a lot of money? I'll leave it to 
the AC staff to specifically answer the financial questions you pose.

> 3) This proposal not only eliminates needs testing for qualifying transfers, 
> but also removes the requirement for the recipient to sign an RSA.

To the extent that this is the case, it was not intended and is being 
dealt with in rewrite.

> 4) Rearranging the IPv4 deck chairs

I understand the impulse to belittle and the frustration of some network 
professionals with certain proposals, even categories of proposals. But 
I personally am not at liberty to ascribe much weight to an appeal to 
ridicule.

> 5) Pie

As I said below, I don't think we should be able arbitrarily to torpedo 
any community member's proposed policies without good reason.

John Springer

>
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2014, John Springer wrote:
>
>> Hi PPML and Randy and Steven,
>> 
>> Subject change and sorry for the top post.
>> 
>> WRT ARIN Draft Policy 2014-14, Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 
>> Transfers, this started out as "ARIN-prop-204 Removing Needs Test from 
>> Small IPv4 Transfers on 16 April 2014. At the 15 May 2014 ARIN AC 
>> teleconference, the motion to move the proposal to a Draft Policy was 
>> passed unanimously. Prerequisite to this action was agreement among the AC 
>> present that, inter alia, the proposal had a clear problem statement.
>> It might still.
>> 
>> So whatever other failings 2014-14 may have, a unclear problem statement 
>> would seem, at least by the AC's definition, not to be one of them.
>> 
>> As far as the why, ARIN is a community of often polarized interests. The 
>> majority does not, and equally importantly, should not, automatically get 
>> to quash all things it does not agree with. Obversely, minorities, even 
>> despised ones, have the right to work for incremental change in their 
>> interests and receive a fair hearing. This would appear to include the 
>> right to rational discussion, even if irritation sometimes shows up.
>> 
>> The shepherd's job is made more difficult by a lot of this talking in code. 
>> Clearly this is a beloved behavior, so I won't say cut it out. But. In the 
>> case of 2014-14, I don't know if it is going to be enough to say 'I don't 
>> like pie', or 'I don't like pie because pie sucks', or 'I don't care. I am 
>> never going to like pie', or even 'I am so much smarter than you, that you 
>> don't even know pie'. Please, no one take this personally.
>> 
>> Shepherds are currently contemplating rewriting 2014-14 to accomodate 
>> objections even though some objections more resemble the above. I am not 
>> completely optimistic about either the rectitude or the efficacy of this 
>> move, but am thinking and working on it.
>> 
>> If anyone might care to comment on the following three choices, I would be 
>> grateful:
>> 
>> 1)	Abandon 2014-14 entirely because... (Don't say pie.)
>> 2)	This part of it is clearly wrong because..., do this to fix it.
>> 3)	Advance it. I haven't heard any convincing opposition.
>> 
>> TIA and in reverse to everyone for the comments and the courtesies.
>> 
>> John Springer
>
>
> -- 
> John Santos
> Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
> 781-861-0670 ext 539
>


From jcurran at arin.net  Fri Dec 26 18:16:20 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 23:16:20 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] What is Open-IX and why does it matter? Was: Re:
 What the heck is OIX? (was RE: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to
 CI Pool Size per Section 4.4)
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5PPwkS8ofNZHjRQfjwHcgF30UqsSEsp-akAgTA_GDc2xw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMDXq5PPwkS8ofNZHjRQfjwHcgF30UqsSEsp-akAgTA_GDc2xw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7F3B4E7D-E00E-4E5A-8CBA-55A4214DD08C@corp.arin.net>

On Dec 26, 2014, at 2:29 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> There's no reason or need to require 175 odd Open-IX members to join an ARIN mailing list to express support in one fashion or another or vice-versa. It seems like an artificial roadblock for each community. Many trade associations establish process for reliable input in compliance with their standards through MoUs or other agreements e.g. Metro Ethernet Forum and others. 

Martin -

    The Open-IX members do not have to participate in the PPML discussion  
    unless they wish to -  you should feel free to note any OIX views on address 
    policy to the PPML mailing list if you so desire,  and the participants in the
    PPML discussion will choose to weigh that input as they see fit.

    When it comes to the AC determining support for a draft policy, they will 
    follow the ARIN Policy Development Process, which requires them to be
    "Guided by the discussion of the Draft Policy on the PPML ??   This means
    the tabulation of messages in support and opposition will reflect solely the 
    PPML discussion counts.    Those not on PPML are not considered, because 
    they are not actually participating in the discussion; for example, they don?t 
    see the reasoning behind opposing viewpoints and perspectives.  

    We?ve had this question arise in the past with other trade organizations, 
    and have been consistent in its application, whether with regard to address
    policy for individual sectors of ARIN?s region or individual technologies such
    as hosting and wireless.   Please feel free to share any recommendations 
    from the OIX community that might be germane to address policy, but it is
    also advisable for those who wish to actually participate in the ARIN policy
    development process to do so on the PPML mailing list.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From hannigan at gmail.com  Fri Dec 26 19:14:37 2014
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:14:37 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] What is Open-IX and why does it matter? Was: Re:
 What the heck is OIX? (was RE: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to
 CI Pool Size per Section 4.4)
In-Reply-To: <7F3B4E7D-E00E-4E5A-8CBA-55A4214DD08C@corp.arin.net>
References: <CAMDXq5PPwkS8ofNZHjRQfjwHcgF30UqsSEsp-akAgTA_GDc2xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<7F3B4E7D-E00E-4E5A-8CBA-55A4214DD08C@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5NcmoBzgCkA3by1X6qH2izzizGJB2yvEXv-jw7OBZk1xg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 6:16 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On Dec 26, 2014, at 2:29 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
> > ...
>

[ snip ]



    We've had this question arise in the past with other trade
> organizations,
>     and have been consistent in its application, whether with regard to
> address
>     policy for individual sectors of ARIN's region or individual
> technologies such
>     as hosting and wireless.   Please feel free to share any
> recommendations
>     from the OIX community that might be germane to address policy, but it
> is
>     also advisable for those who wish to actually participate in the ARIN
> policy
>     development process to do so on the PPML mailing list.
>
>
Many that are part of the OIX community have already stated their aversion
to joining the noise heavy mailing list in order to comment once or twice a
year. As far as trade association inter communications, do you have a
written guidance on this supported by the Board? It would be good to
clarify exactly how trade organizations should provide input to "ARIN" on
behalf of their members and if that will not be valid - in writing. It
would likely help to make the case to consider participating in other ways
where there is [currently] aversion.

Best,

-M<
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141226/2e1df24a/attachment.htm>

From owen at delong.com  Fri Dec 26 19:26:55 2014
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 16:26:55 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1412261040520.95971@mail.inlandnet.com>
References: <1141224003801.567A-100000@joonya.egh.com>
	<alpine.BSF.2.00.1412261040520.95971@mail.inlandnet.com>
Message-ID: <1FF5E627-6780-4590-B592-63FD9C649835@delong.com>

>> 2) The problem the proposal purports to solve hasn't actually been
>> demonstrated. "ARIN staff [...] is spending scarce staff time on needs testing of small transfers."
> 
> You pose an interesting procedural question. In our considerations of advancing prop-204 to Draft Policy, the question of the problem statement was specifically discussed and it was agreed that the community had spoken "loud and clear" that request turn around times are too long. We can quibble about the author's linkage, but we didn't ignore this and the motion to advance passed.

I don?t think this can be taken to indicate what you claim here.

As I understand the current PDP, the vote is as to whether or not the proposal contains a clear problem statement. To be certain, the problem statement in 204 was indeed clear. I do not believe we are allowed to evaluate the accuracy or validity of the problem statement at that stage, only it?s clarity. As such, I voted to advance 204 to draft policy based on the problem statement being clear. This should not in any way be construed as a vote that it was accurate, legitimate, or that I concur that the stated linkage between delays for request processing and transfers was, in fact, in evidence.

> Certain AC actions may be petitioned, https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html, PART THREE PDP PETITION PROCESS, but I don't think failure to convince everyone that the problem statement is clear is one of them. In fact, the petition process appears to be specifically directed at failure to advance things. There does not appear to be provision to petition advancement of a policy proposal to Draft Policy, which is what you seem to be suggesting here.

Clarity and accuracy are different things. Indeed, the problem statement is clear and the AC vote reflects a strong belief by the AC that is the case.

Construing that to extend to the accuracy or validity of said problem statement, however, is not appropriate, IMHO.

>> Obviously, doing the necessary checking
>> requires staff time, but is it a significant amount?  Is it taking much
>> longer than it used to?  Is it costing ARIN a lot of money in staff
>> wages and overhead to do these assessments, or is it lost in the noise?
> 
> If 17.47% is not small, is it significant? There definitely was a lot of comment from the community in Chicago that it is taking too long to turn requests around. What is the datum for a lot of money? I'll leave it to the AC staff to specifically answer the financial questions you pose.

The problem is that there is no indication what fraction of that time is linked to serialized free pool requests processed by teams (vs. previous processing by individuals) vs. transfer processing time. As such, I don?t think we have clear data to indicate the necessity of this proposal or that it will have a meaningful impact on turnaround times.

>> 4) Rearranging the IPv4 deck chairs
> 
> I understand the impulse to belittle and the frustration of some network professionals with certain proposals, even categories of proposals. But I personally am not at liberty to ascribe much weight to an appeal to ridicule.

While whimsically phrased, I don?t think the sentiment of ?IPv4 is over, stop tinkering with the policy for the endgame? can be entirely dismissed as ridicule.

We have heard this from substantial fractions of the community on several occasions.

Owen




From mpetach at netflight.com  Fri Dec 26 19:33:39 2014
From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 16:33:39 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1412261040520.95971@mail.inlandnet.com>
References: <1141224003801.567A-100000@joonya.egh.com>
	<alpine.BSF.2.00.1412261040520.95971@mail.inlandnet.com>
Message-ID: <CAEmG1=q2FjcW7KUnnijKVSXaUveN1WvWwBJxDBGdbLQTP3TJKg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 3:01 PM, John Springer <springer at inlandnet.com>
wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> Thank you for the clear statement of opposition. Please allow me to
> address the points you offer inline.
>
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2014, John Santos wrote:
>
>
>> Oppose 2014-14
>>
>> 1) /16 is not "small"
>>
>
> This has actually been mentioned before, by several commentators. The
> problem with "big" and "not "small"" is that they require reference to a
> datum, which WRT to 2014-14 has not been provided. Owen Delong provided a
> fair attempt to come to grips with what big or small actually mean as
> percentages of the number and size of transfers that have occured since the
> STLS policy was adopted in 2009, here:
>



Hi John,

I think it might help if we use the terms
XX-Small, X-Small, Small, etc. as defined
by ARIN themselves at
 https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html

This might help eliminate confusion, and allow
for some flexibility going forward; if we instead
of hard-coding a specific size, instead tie it to
the fee schedule, and say "only entities that
currently fall into the "Small" and below category
of the ARIN fee schedule (ie cumulative /18 or
less of total IPv4 holdings as of the 2013 fee
schedule) may obtain a single transfer allocation
of size not to exceed the largest allowed for an
XX-Small organization (which, as of the 2013
fee schedule would mean a /22 or smaller)."

Or perhaps keep it supremely simple:
"Any org-ID may obtain one transfer allocation
of size not to exceed the largest allocation
within the XX-Small category (currently a /22,
as of the 2013 fee schedule) per year without
requiring needs justification."

That way, as our concept of ISP size shifts
and changes over time, so too does the
maximum needs-free allocation size.

[after writing the first paragraph, I realized
we probably don't need to limit who can
make use of this; the larger org-IDs aren't
going to bother messing around with xx-small
sized allocations, so it should be self-limiting.]

Thanks!

Matt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141226/2308908b/attachment.htm>

From andrew.dul at quark.net  Fri Dec 26 20:03:39 2014
From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 17:03:39 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=q2FjcW7KUnnijKVSXaUveN1WvWwBJxDBGdbLQTP3TJKg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1141224003801.567A-100000@joonya.egh.com>	<alpine.BSF.2.00.1412261040520.95971@mail.inlandnet.com>
	<CAEmG1=q2FjcW7KUnnijKVSXaUveN1WvWwBJxDBGdbLQTP3TJKg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <549E056B.9090704@quark.net>

On 12/26/2014 4:33 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 3:01 PM, John Springer <springer at inlandnet.com
> <mailto:springer at inlandnet.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi John,
>
>     Thank you for the clear statement of opposition. Please allow me
>     to address the points you offer inline.
>
>     On Wed, 24 Dec 2014, John Santos wrote:
>
>
>         Oppose 2014-14
>
>         1) /16 is not "small"
>
>
>     This has actually been mentioned before, by several commentators.
>     The problem with "big" and "not "small"" is that they require
>     reference to a datum, which WRT to 2014-14 has not been provided.
>     Owen Delong provided a fair attempt to come to grips with what big
>     or small actually mean as percentages of the number and size of
>     transfers that have occured since the STLS policy was adopted in
>     2009, here:
>
>
>
>
> Hi John,
>
> I think it might help if we use the terms
> XX-Small, X-Small, Small, etc. as defined
> by ARIN themselves at
>  https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html
>
> This might help eliminate confusion, and allow
> for some flexibility going forward; if we instead
> of hard-coding a specific size, instead tie it to
> the fee schedule, and say "only entities that
> currently fall into the "Small" and below category
> of the ARIN fee schedule (ie cumulative /18 or
> less of total IPv4 holdings as of the 2013 fee
> schedule) may obtain a single transfer allocation
> of size not to exceed the largest allowed for an
> XX-Small organization (which, as of the 2013
> fee schedule would mean a /22 or smaller)."
>
> Or perhaps keep it supremely simple:
> "Any org-ID may obtain one transfer allocation
> of size not to exceed the largest allocation
> within the XX-Small category (currently a /22,
> as of the 2013 fee schedule) per year without
> requiring needs justification."
>
> That way, as our concept of ISP size shifts
> and changes over time, so too does the
> maximum needs-free allocation size.

I'm not in favor of linking the fee categories to number policy.  The
fees and its categories are under the control of the board; number
policy is under control of the Internet community via the PDP.  I
believe the board's actions, to adjust fees, should not cause changes
with number policy.

Andrew

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141226/cf7d8e50/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at arin.net  Fri Dec 26 20:25:59 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 01:25:59 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] What is Open-IX and why does it matter? Was: Re:
 What the heck is OIX? (was RE: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to
 CI Pool Size per Section 4.4)
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5NcmoBzgCkA3by1X6qH2izzizGJB2yvEXv-jw7OBZk1xg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMDXq5PPwkS8ofNZHjRQfjwHcgF30UqsSEsp-akAgTA_GDc2xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<7F3B4E7D-E00E-4E5A-8CBA-55A4214DD08C@corp.arin.net>
	<CAMDXq5NcmoBzgCkA3by1X6qH2izzizGJB2yvEXv-jw7OBZk1xg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3299736A-44FE-4D7F-8F2F-24C8EE622341@arin.net>

On Dec 26, 2014, at 7:14 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com<mailto:hannigan at gmail.com>> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 6:16 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:
On Dec 26, 2014, at 2:29 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com<mailto:hannigan at gmail.com>> wrote:
> ...

[ snip ]

    We?ve had this question arise in the past with other trade organizations,
    and have been consistent in its application, whether with regard to address
    policy for individual sectors of ARIN?s region or individual technologies such
    as hosting and wireless.   Please feel free to share any recommendations
    from the OIX community that might be germane to address policy, but it is
    also advisable for those who wish to actually participate in the ARIN policy
    development process to do so on the PPML mailing list.

Many that are part of the OIX community have already stated their aversion to joining the noise heavy mailing list in order to comment once or twice a year.

Perfectly understandable, and it is fair to suppose that much of the ongoing
address policy development efforts may not be of direct interest to the OIX
community.

As far as trade association inter communications, do you have a written guidance on this supported by the Board?

The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) is adopted by the ARIN Board.
<https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html>  The PDP contains the following
provisions for input -

"Policy discussions in the ARIN region are conducted on the Public Policy Mail List (PPML) and via Public Policy Consultation (PPC). There are no requirements for participation other than adherence to the guidelines of behavior and decorum, and anyone interested in following the process may subscribe to the PPML or may participate without charge in Public Policy Consultations via in person or remote participation methods.?

It would be good to clarify exactly how trade organizations should provide input to "ARIN" on behalf of their members and if that will not be valid - in writing. It would likely help to make the case to consider participating in other ways where there is [currently] aversion.

Trade associations can expression views via the PPML mailing list or the Public
Policy Consultations (which take place at ARIN and NANOG meetings).  These
views are considered on their merits, just as any other position posted to PPML
or raised during the Public Policy consultation.

In the majority of cases, a well-reasoned statement from a trade association is
rather likely to influence the development of relevant address policy.  If this does
not turn out to be the case, then I would again recommend that the individual trade
association members take a moment to express their views on the PPML mailing
list. I do recognize that such participation takes a modest level of effort, but it is a
fair and reasonable request if that input is going to be used as the basis for policy.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141227/6441701b/attachment.htm>

From mpetach at netflight.com  Sat Dec 27 09:30:29 2014
From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 06:30:29 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change
 Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate
In-Reply-To: <549AE80D.3080206@arin.net>
References: <549AE80D.3080206@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAEmG1=oxe5Ktqes9Lyh6ugbU-UE=rOCeS1fMQX6f-WoJc1_GoQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 8:21 AM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:

> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17
> Change Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate
>
> On 18 December 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) recommended
> ARIN-2014-17 for adoption, making it a Recommended Draft Policy.
>
> ARIN-2014-17 is below and can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_17.html
>
> You are encouraged to discuss Draft Policy 2014-17 on the PPML prior to
> the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Consultation at NANOG 63 in San Antonio in
> February 2015. Both the discussion on the list and at the meeting will be
> used by the ARIN Advisory Council to determine the 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,
>
> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
> ## * ##
>



OMG.

An ARIN policy proposal that is simple, succinct,
easy to understand and implement...I love it!

I support this proposal.

Thanks!

Matt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141227/84458a03/attachment.htm>

From ppml at rs.seastrom.com  Sat Dec 27 10:03:28 2014
From: ppml at rs.seastrom.com (Rob Seastrom)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 10:03:28 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <549E056B.9090704@quark.net> (Andrew Dul's message of "Fri,
	26 Dec 2014 17:03:39 -0800")
References: <1141224003801.567A-100000@joonya.egh.com>
	<alpine.BSF.2.00.1412261040520.95971@mail.inlandnet.com>
	<CAEmG1=q2FjcW7KUnnijKVSXaUveN1WvWwBJxDBGdbLQTP3TJKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<549E056B.9090704@quark.net>
Message-ID: <867fxdi18f.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>


Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> writes:

> I'm not in favor of linking the fee categories to number policy.?
> The fees and its categories are under the control of the board;
> number policy is under control of the Internet community via the
> PDP.? I believe the board's actions, to adjust fees, should not
> cause changes with number policy.  Andrew

+1

-r



From bill at herrin.us  Sat Dec 27 13:52:59 2014
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 13:52:59 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness
In-Reply-To: <549E056B.9090704@quark.net>
References: <1141224003801.567A-100000@joonya.egh.com>
	<alpine.BSF.2.00.1412261040520.95971@mail.inlandnet.com>
	<CAEmG1=q2FjcW7KUnnijKVSXaUveN1WvWwBJxDBGdbLQTP3TJKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<549E056B.9090704@quark.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGWeX_WTqKpuTSB7rCszF6dbYXiL_UV4omF4oFfEiL6Ykw@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
> I'm not in favor of linking the fee categories to number policy.  The fees
> and its categories are under the control of the board; number policy is
> under control of the Internet community via the PDP.  I believe the board's
> actions, to adjust fees, should not cause changes with number policy.

Agreed. Over the course of this discussion I've heard a number of
preposterous arguments for why address blocks large enough to support
tens of thousands of customers and employees should be deemed "small."
The arguments have nothing to do with any rational definition of small
and everything to do with the inadequate support for waiving the needs
basis tests for anything "large."

Folks, I want to see us move away from needs testing too, but you're
shooting yourselves in the foot here. It looks to me like there's real
support for allowing it in the /22 and /24 neighborhoods. Not a
perfect consensus but something approaching it. And if history is a
guide (I'm looking at the /24 minimum assignments) success with a
cautious approach offers a 2 to 3 year path to throwing the gates wide
open.

You can argue for /16 and /18 until you're blue in the face and get
nowhere, ever, but accepting /22 puts you on a timer until /16 becomes
inevitable.

Be smart.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
May I solve your unusual networking challenges?


From mueller at syr.edu  Sat Dec 27 18:51:11 2014
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 23:51:11 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] What is Open-IX and why does it matter?
Message-ID: <dcb122dfeccf4b61ac3bafbd8e5442d4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>

Martin
As an AC member I would be very receptive to seeing forwarded emails from OIX (or other trade association lists) that directly comment on specific ARIN policies. I would certainly give them weight in determining community support. A formal statement from the leadership of such an association would of course be more powerful, but I think that a single OIX member acting as an informal liaison by forwarding emails would serve a very useful function.

I understand perfectly why the majority of members of OIX or any other trade association would not want to join a highly specialized mailing list such as PPML. On the other hand, I am aware of the self-selection and narrowing process that can occur on these specialized lists. Therefore I think when people on the PPML bring to our attention relevant views from other communities it is extremely important and useful.

--MM


From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Martin Hannigan
Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 7:15 PM
To: John Curran
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] What is Open-IX and why does it matter? Was: Re: What the heck is OIX? (was RE: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4)



On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 6:16 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:
On Dec 26, 2014, at 2:29 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com<mailto:hannigan at gmail.com>> wrote:
> ...

[ snip ]


    We've had this question arise in the past with other trade organizations,
    and have been consistent in its application, whether with regard to address
    policy for individual sectors of ARIN's region or individual technologies such
    as hosting and wireless.   Please feel free to share any recommendations
    from the OIX community that might be germane to address policy, but it is
    also advisable for those who wish to actually participate in the ARIN policy
    development process to do so on the PPML mailing list.

Many that are part of the OIX community have already stated their aversion to joining the noise heavy mailing list in order to comment once or twice a year. As far as trade association inter communications, do you have a written guidance on this supported by the Board? It would be good to clarify exactly how trade organizations should provide input to "ARIN" on behalf of their members and if that will not be valid - in writing. It would likely help to make the case to consider participating in other ways where there is [currently] aversion.
Best,
-M<




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141227/37ff5b35/attachment.htm>

From rudi.daniel at gmail.com  Sat Dec 27 20:33:12 2014
From: rudi.daniel at gmail.com (Rudolph Daniel)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 20:33:12 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML : 2014-17
Message-ID: <CA+uaoiUF3CyK3SaBRWKhOvxOLX-gFxhfdHqM9MEuuotSY3M7CA@mail.gmail.com>

Re 2014-17....I support.

Rudi Daniel
ICT consulting
784 430 9235
On Dec 27, 2014 7:52 PM, <arin-ppml-request at arin.net> wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
>         arin-ppml at arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         arin-ppml-request at arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         arin-ppml-owner at arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: What is Open-IX and why does it matter? Was: Re: What the
>       heck is OIX? (was RE: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to
>       CI Pool Size per Section 4.4) (John Curran)
>    2. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change Utilization
>       Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate (Matthew Petach)
>    3. Re: 2014-14, was Internet Fairness (Rob Seastrom)
>    4. Re: 2014-14, was Internet Fairness (William Herrin)
>    5. Re: What is Open-IX and why does it matter? (Milton L Mueller)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 01:25:59 +0000
> From: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
> To: Martin J Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] What is Open-IX and why does it matter? Was:
>         Re: What the heck is OIX? (was RE: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21:
>         Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4)
> Message-ID: <3299736A-44FE-4D7F-8F2F-24C8EE622341 at arin.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> On Dec 26, 2014, at 7:14 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com<mailto:
> hannigan at gmail.com>> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 6:16 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:
> jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 2014, at 2:29 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com<mailto:
> hannigan at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > ...
>
> [ snip ]
>
>     We?ve had this question arise in the past with other trade
> organizations,
>     and have been consistent in its application, whether with regard to
> address
>     policy for individual sectors of ARIN?s region or individual
> technologies such
>     as hosting and wireless.   Please feel free to share any
> recommendations
>     from the OIX community that might be germane to address policy, but it
> is
>     also advisable for those who wish to actually participate in the ARIN
> policy
>     development process to do so on the PPML mailing list.
>
> Many that are part of the OIX community have already stated their aversion
> to joining the noise heavy mailing list in order to comment once or twice a
> year.
>
> Perfectly understandable, and it is fair to suppose that much of the
> ongoing
> address policy development efforts may not be of direct interest to the OIX
> community.
>
> As far as trade association inter communications, do you have a written
> guidance on this supported by the Board?
>
> The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) is adopted by the ARIN Board.
> <https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html>  The PDP contains the following
> provisions for input -
>
> "Policy discussions in the ARIN region are conducted on the Public Policy
> Mail List (PPML) and via Public Policy Consultation (PPC). There are no
> requirements for participation other than adherence to the guidelines of
> behavior and decorum, and anyone interested in following the process may
> subscribe to the PPML or may participate without charge in Public Policy
> Consultations via in person or remote participation methods.?
>
> It would be good to clarify exactly how trade organizations should provide
> input to "ARIN" on behalf of their members and if that will not be valid -
> in writing. It would likely help to make the case to consider participating
> in other ways where there is [currently] aversion.
>
> Trade associations can expression views via the PPML mailing list or the
> Public
> Policy Consultations (which take place at ARIN and NANOG meetings).  These
> views are considered on their merits, just as any other position posted to
> PPML
> or raised during the Public Policy consultation.
>
> In the majority of cases, a well-reasoned statement from a trade
> association is
> rather likely to influence the development of relevant address policy.  If
> this does
> not turn out to be the case, then I would again recommend that the
> individual trade
> association members take a moment to express their views on the PPML
> mailing
> list. I do recognize that such participation takes a modest level of
> effort, but it is a
> fair and reasonable request if that input is going to be used as the basis
> for policy.
>
> Thanks,
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141227/6441701b/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 06:30:29 -0800
> From: Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com>
> To: ARIN <info at arin.net>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change
>         Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate
> Message-ID:
>         <CAEmG1=oxe5Ktqes9Lyh6ugbU-UE=
> rOCeS1fMQX6f-WoJc1_GoQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 8:21 AM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
>
> > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17
> > Change Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate
> >
> > On 18 December 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) recommended
> > ARIN-2014-17 for adoption, making it a Recommended Draft Policy.
> >
> > ARIN-2014-17 is below and can be found at:
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_17.html
> >
> > You are encouraged to discuss Draft Policy 2014-17 on the PPML prior to
> > the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Consultation at NANOG 63 in San Antonio
> in
> > February 2015. Both the discussion on the list and at the meeting will be
> > used by the ARIN Advisory Council to determine the 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,
> >
> > Communications and Member Services
> > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> >
> >
> > ## * ##
> >
>
>
>
> OMG.
>
> An ARIN policy proposal that is simple, succinct,
> easy to understand and implement...I love it!
>
> I support this proposal.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Matt
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141227/84458a03/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 10:03:28 -0500
> From: Rob Seastrom <ppml at rs.seastrom.com>
> To: andrew.dul at quark.net
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness
> Message-ID: <867fxdi18f.fsf at valhalla.seastrom.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>
> Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> writes:
>
> > I'm not in favor of linking the fee categories to number policy.?
> > The fees and its categories are under the control of the board;
> > number policy is under control of the Internet community via the
> > PDP.? I believe the board's actions, to adjust fees, should not
> > cause changes with number policy.  Andrew
>
> +1
>
> -r
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 13:52:59 -0500
> From: William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
> To: Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAP-guGWeX_WTqKpuTSB7rCszF6dbYXiL_UV4omF4oFfEiL6Ykw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
> > I'm not in favor of linking the fee categories to number policy.  The
> fees
> > and its categories are under the control of the board; number policy is
> > under control of the Internet community via the PDP.  I believe the
> board's
> > actions, to adjust fees, should not cause changes with number policy.
>
> Agreed. Over the course of this discussion I've heard a number of
> preposterous arguments for why address blocks large enough to support
> tens of thousands of customers and employees should be deemed "small."
> The arguments have nothing to do with any rational definition of small
> and everything to do with the inadequate support for waiving the needs
> basis tests for anything "large."
>
> Folks, I want to see us move away from needs testing too, but you're
> shooting yourselves in the foot here. It looks to me like there's real
> support for allowing it in the /22 and /24 neighborhoods. Not a
> perfect consensus but something approaching it. And if history is a
> guide (I'm looking at the /24 minimum assignments) success with a
> cautious approach offers a 2 to 3 year path to throwing the gates wide
> open.
>
> You can argue for /16 and /18 until you're blue in the face and get
> nowhere, ever, but accepting /22 puts you on a timer until /16 becomes
> inevitable.
>
> Be smart.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
> May I solve your unusual networking challenges?
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 23:51:11 +0000
> From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> To: Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com>, John Curran
>         <jcurran at arin.net>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] What is Open-IX and why does it matter?
> Message-ID: <dcb122dfeccf4b61ac3bafbd8e5442d4 at EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Martin
> As an AC member I would be very receptive to seeing forwarded emails from
> OIX (or other trade association lists) that directly comment on specific
> ARIN policies. I would certainly give them weight in determining community
> support. A formal statement from the leadership of such an association
> would of course be more powerful, but I think that a single OIX member
> acting as an informal liaison by forwarding emails would serve a very
> useful function.
>
> I understand perfectly why the majority of members of OIX or any other
> trade association would not want to join a highly specialized mailing list
> such as PPML. On the other hand, I am aware of the self-selection and
> narrowing process that can occur on these specialized lists. Therefore I
> think when people on the PPML bring to our attention relevant views from
> other communities it is extremely important and useful.
>
> --MM
>
>
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Martin Hannigan
> Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 7:15 PM
> To: John Curran
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] What is Open-IX and why does it matter? Was: Re:
> What the heck is OIX? (was RE: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to
> CI Pool Size per Section 4.4)
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 6:16 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:
> jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 2014, at 2:29 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com<mailto:
> hannigan at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > ...
>
> [ snip ]
>
>
>     We've had this question arise in the past with other trade
> organizations,
>     and have been consistent in its application, whether with regard to
> address
>     policy for individual sectors of ARIN's region or individual
> technologies such
>     as hosting and wireless.   Please feel free to share any
> recommendations
>     from the OIX community that might be germane to address policy, but it
> is
>     also advisable for those who wish to actually participate in the ARIN
> policy
>     development process to do so on the PPML mailing list.
>
> Many that are part of the OIX community have already stated their aversion
> to joining the noise heavy mailing list in order to comment once or twice a
> year. As far as trade association inter communications, do you have a
> written guidance on this supported by the Board? It would be good to
> clarify exactly how trade organizations should provide input to "ARIN" on
> behalf of their members and if that will not be valid - in writing. It
> would likely help to make the case to consider participating in other ways
> where there is [currently] aversion.
> Best,
> -M<
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141227/37ff5b35/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML mailing list
> ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>
> End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 114, Issue 60
> ******************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141227/42aa538b/attachment.htm>

From farmer at umn.edu  Mon Dec 29 15:24:19 2014
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 14:24:19 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool
 Size per Section 4.4
In-Reply-To: <549D9E3A.5030108@quark.net>
References: <5474E803.9020504@arin.net> <54989FCA.2020403@umn.edu>
	<549D9E3A.5030108@quark.net>
Message-ID: <54A1B873.2000506@umn.edu>

Thank you Andrew,

I believe your proposed text is consistent with the problem statement of 
this policy, and provides additional editorial clean up of Section 4.4 
that at least in my opinion provides additional clarity.

How do others feel about this proposed text?  Should we go forward with 
this text?

Thanks

On 12/26/14, 11:43 , Andrew Dul wrote:
> David,
>
> I'd like to propose the following rewrite of this section as replacement
> text for ARIN-2014-21.  I believe this rewrite deals with the clarity
> issues that you have noted.  I believe this rewrite does not change
> operational practice (other than the /15 replacing the current /16), but
> provides some needed clarity in this section from multiple amendments
> over the years.
>
>
> ================
>
> *4.4. Micro-allocation*
>
> ARIN will make IPv4 micro-allocations to critical infrastructure
> providers of the Internet, including public exchange points, core DNS
> service providers (e.g. ICANN-sanctioned root and ccTLD operators) as
> well as the RIRs and IANA.
>
> These allocations will be no smaller than a /24. Multiple allocations
> may be granted when operational need can be documented.
>
> ARIN will place an equivalent of a /15 of IPv4 address space in a
> permanent reserve for micro-allocations and shall use sparse allocations
> practices where applicable.
>
> *4.4.1 Internet Exchange Points*
>
> Exchange point allocations MUST be allocated from specific blocks
> reserved only for this purpose. All other micro-allocations WILL be
> allocated out of other blocks reserved for micro-allocation purposes.
> ARIN will make a list of these blocks publicly available.
>
> Exchange point operators must provide justification for the allocation,
> including: connection policy, location, other participants (minimum of
> three total), ASN, and contact information. This policy does not
> preclude exchange point operators from requesting address space under
> other policies.
>
> *4.4.2 gTLD Allocations*
>
> ICANN-sanctioned gTLD operators may justify up to the equivalent of an
> IPv4 /23 block for each authorized new gTLD, allocated from the free
> pool or received via transfer, but not from the blocks reserved in
> section 4.4. This limit of a /23 equivalent per gTLD does not apply to
> gTLD allocations made under previous policy.
>
> *4.4.3 Other Critical Infrastructure*
>
> Other critical infrastructure, such as ICANN-sanctioned root and ccTLD
> operators, as well as the RIRs and IANA, may receive allocations from
> ARIN, when operational need can be demonstrated.
>
>
> ================
>



-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================


From farmer at umn.edu  Mon Dec 29 16:17:54 2014
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 15:17:54 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool
 Size per Section 4.4
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5PPwkS8ofNZHjRQfjwHcgF30UqsSEsp-akAgTA_GDc2xw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMDXq5PPwkS8ofNZHjRQfjwHcgF30UqsSEsp-akAgTA_GDc2xw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54A1C502.1000503@umn.edu>

Back to the main ARIN-2014-21 thread.

On 12/26/14, 13:29 , Martin Hannigan wrote:

> I checked. You're right. You can't find the discussions. I'll ask the
> web team to make sure mailing list archives are easily findable on the
> website. Mea culpa, that's an oversight. We're growing rapidly and
> missed that unintentionally. In the meantime, this should work
> http://mailman.open-ix.org/pipermail/public/
>
> Hope that was helpful. Questions offline or --> over there at OIX.
>
> Best,
>
> Martin Hannigan (marty at open-ix.org <mailto:marty at open-ix.org>)
> Open-IX Association/Treasurer

Thank you for proving the pointer to the OIX archives.  I have review 
the discussion related to this policy and personally found it helpful 
and informative.

However, as John Curran stated "the tabulation of messages in support 
and opposition will reflect solely the PPML discussion counts", 
therefore; so I currently see 2 clear statements of support, no 
opposition, a proposal to modify the policy text, primarily consisting 
of editorial changes for the broader section 4.4, and side discussions 
not directly related to the policy itself.

As shepherd, in order to justify recommending to the AC that we move 
this policy forward to Recommended Draft policy prior to the PPC at 
NANOG in San Antonio, I will need to see more support for this policy on 
PPML.  Otherwise, without clear additional support on PPML, I anticipate 
this policy going to the PPC in San Antonio in February in its current 
state as a Draft policy.  Then subsequent to and based on feedback from 
San Antonio advancing this policy to Recommended Draft policy prior to 
the PPM in San Francisco in April.

So if you support this policy, and particularly if you think this policy 
should go to the PPC at NANOG in San Antonio in February as Recommended 
Draft policy please speak up ASAP.

Thanks.

-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================


From hannigan at gmail.com  Mon Dec 29 16:41:51 2014
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 16:41:51 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool
 Size per Section 4.4
In-Reply-To: <54A1C502.1000503@umn.edu>
References: <CAMDXq5PPwkS8ofNZHjRQfjwHcgF30UqsSEsp-akAgTA_GDc2xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<54A1C502.1000503@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5MU0po=TNJsHJndWKShpCqsC+XZBJDTsbswpJid4o1b_Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 4:17 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:

> Back to the main ARIN-2014-21 thread.
>
> On 12/26/14, 13:29 , Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>  I checked. You're right. You can't find the discussions. I'll ask the
>> web team to make sure mailing list archives are easily findable on the
>> website. Mea culpa, that's an oversight. We're growing rapidly and
>> missed that unintentionally. In the meantime, this should work
>> http://mailman.open-ix.org/pipermail/public/
>>
>> Hope that was helpful. Questions offline or --> over there at OIX.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Martin Hannigan (marty at open-ix.org <mailto:marty at open-ix.org>)
>> Open-IX Association/Treasurer
>>
>
> Thank you for proving the pointer to the OIX archives.  I have review the
> discussion related to this policy and personally found it helpful and
> informative.
>
>
Most of the worlds leading interconnection experts reside on that mailing
list.



> However, as John Curran stated "the tabulation of messages in support and
> opposition will reflect solely the PPML discussion counts", therefore; so I
> currently see 2 clear statements of support, no opposition, a proposal to
> modify the policy text, primarily consisting of editorial changes for the
> broader section 4.


Curran is inaccurate from my viewpoint. That's the unilateral approach that
probably doesn't work for ARIN as a whole. I don't see any of the limits he
mentions codified e.g. the NANOG PPCs aren't codified in the PDP.

Miltons thoughts on the subject are spot on.

Best,

-M<
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141229/6bca85df/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at arin.net  Mon Dec 29 19:30:28 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 00:30:28 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool
 Size per Section 4.4
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5MU0po=TNJsHJndWKShpCqsC+XZBJDTsbswpJid4o1b_Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMDXq5PPwkS8ofNZHjRQfjwHcgF30UqsSEsp-akAgTA_GDc2xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<54A1C502.1000503@umn.edu>
	<CAMDXq5MU0po=TNJsHJndWKShpCqsC+XZBJDTsbswpJid4o1b_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3B2BCE99-12FD-4C8D-AF91-A3331A7B7F03@corp.arin.net>

On Dec 29, 2014, at 4:41 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com<mailto:hannigan at gmail.com>> wrote:
...
Curran is inaccurate from my viewpoint. That's the unilateral approach that probably doesn't work for ARIN as a whole. I don't see any of the limits he mentions codified e.g. the NANOG PPCs aren't codified in the PDP.

Martin -

I already noted that per the Policy Development Process, policy discussions
take place on the PPML mailing list and at PPCs.  Regarding where PPCs
occur, please again reference the PPC definition within the Policy Development
Process <https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html> -

"Public Policy Consultation (PPC)

An open public discussion held by ARIN of Internet number resource policy that provides for the contemporaneous interaction and polling of in-person and remote participants. These consultations may be held at ARIN's Public Policy Meetings and at other related forums as approved by the ARIN Board of Trustees.?

There is little doubt that OIX qualifies as a related forum, so if the OIX would
like to host Public Policy Consultations (as codified in the PDP), I?d be happy
to work with the OIX folks and the ARIN AC to look into the possibility.  I do not
know if there is or will be enough exchange point address policy development
to make it worthwhile - that would probably be one of the topics that needs to
be discussed, and then explained to the ARIN Board of Trustees to gain the
approval to conduct PPCs at OIX meetings.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141230/8916233b/attachment.htm>

From hannigan at gmail.com  Mon Dec 29 20:42:09 2014
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 20:42:09 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool
 Size per Section 4.4
In-Reply-To: <3B2BCE99-12FD-4C8D-AF91-A3331A7B7F03@corp.arin.net>
References: <CAMDXq5PPwkS8ofNZHjRQfjwHcgF30UqsSEsp-akAgTA_GDc2xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<54A1C502.1000503@umn.edu>
	<CAMDXq5MU0po=TNJsHJndWKShpCqsC+XZBJDTsbswpJid4o1b_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<3B2BCE99-12FD-4C8D-AF91-A3331A7B7F03@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5PF36spSNdzbh0My+4YdaJd2Z=79dhpzcPQkzC5JqBJgA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 7:30 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

>  On Dec 29, 2014, at 4:41 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>   Curran is inaccurate from my viewpoint. That's the unilateral approach
> that probably doesn't work for ARIN as a whole. I don't see any of the
> limits he mentions codified e.g. the NANOG PPCs aren't codified in the PDP.
>
>
>
>  Martin -
>
>  I already noted that per the Policy Development Process, policy
> discussions
> take place on the PPML mailing list and at PPCs.  Regarding where PPCs
> occur, please again reference the PPC definition within the Policy
> Development
> Process <https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html> -
>
>  "Public Policy Consultation (PPC)
>
>  An open public discussion held by ARIN of Internet number resource
> policy that provides for the contemporaneous interaction and polling of
> in-person and remote participants. These consultations may be held at
> ARIN's Public Policy Meetings and at other related forums as approved by
> the ARIN Board of Trustees."
>

Thank for underscoring my point about the lack of clarity. The discussion
has transcended OIX and is about ARIN and whether it wants open and
transparent internet governance inputs from outside parties that have
recognized expertise.

Please take a look at Dr. Muellers comments. They may be helpful to you.

FYI,

-M<
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141229/5211a036/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at arin.net  Mon Dec 29 21:51:42 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 02:51:42 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool
 Size per Section 4.4
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5PF36spSNdzbh0My+4YdaJd2Z=79dhpzcPQkzC5JqBJgA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMDXq5PPwkS8ofNZHjRQfjwHcgF30UqsSEsp-akAgTA_GDc2xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<54A1C502.1000503@umn.edu>
	<CAMDXq5MU0po=TNJsHJndWKShpCqsC+XZBJDTsbswpJid4o1b_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<3B2BCE99-12FD-4C8D-AF91-A3331A7B7F03@corp.arin.net>
	<CAMDXq5PF36spSNdzbh0My+4YdaJd2Z=79dhpzcPQkzC5JqBJgA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5CF03FB3-A52C-4245-BFB5-FADFC98DA45C@arin.net>

On Dec 29, 2014, at 8:42 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com<mailto:hannigan at gmail.com>> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 7:30 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:
On Dec 29, 2014, at 4:41 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com<mailto:hannigan at gmail.com>> wrote:
...
Curran is inaccurate from my viewpoint. That's the unilateral approach that probably doesn't work for ARIN as a whole. I don't see any of the limits he mentions codified e.g. the NANOG PPCs aren't codified in the PDP.

Martin -

I already noted that per the Policy Development Process, policy discussions
take place on the PPML mailing list and at PPCs.  Regarding where PPCs
occur, please again reference the PPC definition within the Policy Development
Process <https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html> -

"Public Policy Consultation (PPC)

An open public discussion held by ARIN of Internet number resource policy that provides for the contemporaneous interaction and polling of in-person and remote participants. These consultations may be held at ARIN's Public Policy Meetings and at other related forums as approved by the ARIN Board of Trustees.?

Thank for underscoring my point about the lack of clarity.

Actually, it?s quite clearly laid out in the Policy Development Process
[i.e. that the PPML mailing list and Public Policy Consultations (PPC)
are the input to be considered and the definition of what is a PPC],
but do not hesitate to ask if you have any further confusion in this area.

The discussion has transcended OIX and is about ARIN and whether it wants open and transparent internet governance inputs from outside parties that have recognized expertise.

ARIN welcomes input into the policy development process and even has a
structured process for gathering formal input into the policy development via
consultations at other related forums, such as those which have recognized
expertise.  If OIX believes that a Public Policy Consultation at an OIX meeting
is desired, please let me know.

In the meantime, please feel free to have the OIX community express their
view on the PPML mailing list or at a Public Policy Consultations (which occur
presently at ARIN and NANOG meetings) - As I noted before, it?s quite likely
that input on draft policies from the OIX would be rather influential in the
development of address policies related to data center and exchange point
environments.

Please take a look at Dr. Muellers comments. They may be helpful to you.

I reviewed the comments quite carefully, and I believe that Milton made quite
clear how he would consider such comments when determining community
support.   Each AC member weights the question of community support when
deciding to recommend a policy change, based on their best understanding
of the discussion on PPML mailing list and at the Public Policy Consultations.
Milton also indicated that that is it extremely important and useful when people
bring relevant views from other communities, and as I?ve noted several times,
I do agree that such views are likely to be influential in the policy development
process, but only to the extant that they are brought into the policy discussion.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141230/76e972b2/attachment.htm>

From hannigan at gmail.com  Mon Dec 29 22:10:55 2014
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:10:55 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool
 Size per Section 4.4
In-Reply-To: <549D9E3A.5030108@quark.net>
References: <5474E803.9020504@arin.net> <54989FCA.2020403@umn.edu>
	<549D9E3A.5030108@quark.net>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5OJL1FAz587QLpj7NoKzATmM_WuB8MxFRYyUrE+__Fn=A@mail.gmail.com>

I'm the first one to seize upon an opportunity to peel band-aids off of
cuts, but I am not sure I see any band-aids below. more like killing
ourselves with a thousand paper cuts.

What would be the usefulness of going from a simple "increase the pool
size" to the below be?

Regarding the sparse allocation bits in your proposal, I thought I read
that staff looked into this and said it wasn't feasible? If that's the
case, why would we go down that path again?  Section 4.4 appears to be
entirely redundant to three of the four sections already. Your suggestions
don't appear to add any clarity to the proposed change at all.

On a side note, I'll point out that this type of activity has been a
frustration for many proposing needed changes to number policy. When we all
put something in that is highly focused on a specific issue, no matter how
simple or articulate that change is --- it enteres a meat grinder and comes
out unrecognizable at the other end. Food for thought.


Best,

-M<



On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:

>  David,
>
> I'd like to propose the following rewrite of this section as replacement
> text for ARIN-2014-21.  I believe this rewrite deals with the clarity
> issues that you have noted.  I believe this rewrite does not change
> operational practice (other than the /15 replacing the current /16), but
> provides some needed clarity in this section from multiple amendments over
> the years.
>
>
> ================
>
> *4.4. Micro-allocation*
>
> ARIN will make IPv4 micro-allocations to critical infrastructure providers
> of the Internet, including public exchange points, core DNS service
> providers (e.g. ICANN-sanctioned root and ccTLD operators) as well as the
> RIRs and IANA.
>
> These allocations will be no smaller than a /24. Multiple allocations may
> be granted when operational need can be documented.
>
> ARIN will place an equivalent of a /15 of IPv4 address space in a
> permanent reserve for micro-allocations and shall use sparse allocations
> practices where applicable.
>
> *4.4.1 Internet Exchange Points*
>
> Exchange point allocations MUST be allocated from specific blocks reserved
> only for this purpose. All other micro-allocations WILL be allocated out of
> other blocks reserved for micro-allocation purposes. ARIN will make a list
> of these blocks publicly available.
>
> Exchange point operators must provide justification for the allocation,
> including: connection policy, location, other participants (minimum of
> three total), ASN, and contact information. This policy does not preclude
> exchange point operators from requesting address space under other policies.
>
> *4.4.2 gTLD Allocations*
>
> ICANN-sanctioned gTLD operators may justify up to the equivalent of an
> IPv4 /23 block for each authorized new gTLD, allocated from the free pool
> or received via transfer, but not from the blocks reserved in section 4.4.
> This limit of a /23 equivalent per gTLD does not apply to gTLD allocations
> made under previous policy.
>
> *4.4.3 Other Critical Infrastructure*
>
> Other critical infrastructure, such as ICANN-sanctioned root and ccTLD
> operators, as well as the RIRs and IANA, may receive allocations from ARIN,
> when operational need can be demonstrated.
>
>
>  ================
>
>
> On 12/22/2014 2:48 PM, David Farmer wrote:
>
> So far there has been very little discussion on this policy.
>
> Therefore, as one of the AC shepherds for this policy I would like to
> initiate some discussion of this policy.  Here are a few questions for the
> ARIN community to think about and provide feedback on;
>
> - The current CI reservation is for all CI not just IXPs, the problem
> statement discusses growth primarily in the IXPs as justification to expand
> the reservation.  Should we split off a separate reservation pool for
> IXPs?  Or, keep the current common CI pool?
>
> - ARIN-2011-4 the policy that made the original CI reservation had a
> Policy Term of 36 Months following implementation, but this was not in the
> policy text itself and therefore did not get included in the NRPM.
>
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_4.html
>
> If applicable, this would have expired July 2014.  So, should there be
> expiration date included in this policy text?  If there should be no
> expiration date, should we explicitly note the removal of any expiration
> date in the discussion of this policy?
>
> - There was discussion of smaller and larger than /24 IXP allocations,
> like /26 on the smaller side and that some very large IXPs are starting to
> need as large as a /22.  Also discussed was, sparse allocation for IXPs to
> allow expansion without renumbering.  Should this policy includes any
> changes along these lines?  Why or why not?
>
> - Should we try to get this to the PPC at NANOG 63 in San Antonio as a
> Recommended Draft Policy?  Or should it wait go to the PPM at ARIN 35 in
> San Francisco as a Recommended Draft Policy?  What about ARIN free pool
> run-out timing?
>
> Do you support the policy as written, if not are there any changes that
> could be made that would allow you to support the policy?
>
> Thanks.
>
> On 11/25/14, 14:35 , ARIN wrote:
>
> On 20 November 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
> "ARIN-prop-213 Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4" as a Draft
> Policy.
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21 is below and can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_21.html
>
> You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft
> Policy 2014-21 on the Public Policy Mailing List.
>
> The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance
> of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource
> Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are:
>
>    * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
>    * Technically Sound
>    * Supported by the Community
>
> The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) 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,
>
> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
> ## * ##
>
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21
> Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4
>
> Date: 25 November 2014
>
> Problem Statement:
>
> At the time that this section of policy was written, IXP growth in North
> America was stagnant. Efforts of late have increased significantly
> within the IXP standards and other communities to improve critical
> infrastructure in North America. This effort is paying dividends and we
> project that a /16 will not be enough to continue to improve global
> interconnect conditions and support needed IXP CI infrastructure.
>
> Policy statement:
>
> Change to text in section 4.4 Micro Allocations:
>
> Current text:
>
> 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.
>
> Proposed text to replace current text entirely:
>
> ARIN will place an equivalent of a /15 of IPv4 address space in a
> reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4.
>
> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141229/aa53b48d/attachment.htm>

From hannigan at gmail.com  Mon Dec 29 22:13:46 2014
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:13:46 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool
 Size per Section 4.4
In-Reply-To: <5CF03FB3-A52C-4245-BFB5-FADFC98DA45C@arin.net>
References: <CAMDXq5PPwkS8ofNZHjRQfjwHcgF30UqsSEsp-akAgTA_GDc2xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<54A1C502.1000503@umn.edu>
	<CAMDXq5MU0po=TNJsHJndWKShpCqsC+XZBJDTsbswpJid4o1b_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<3B2BCE99-12FD-4C8D-AF91-A3331A7B7F03@corp.arin.net>
	<CAMDXq5PF36spSNdzbh0My+4YdaJd2Z=79dhpzcPQkzC5JqBJgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5CF03FB3-A52C-4245-BFB5-FADFC98DA45C@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5NfNOxDxZQSc5Xw9OSZbtJj-Nsft9L6ycuBSL65B59n4g@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:51 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

>  On Dec 29, 2014, at 8:42 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 7:30 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 29, 2014, at 4:41 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>   Curran is inaccurate from my viewpoint. That's the unilateral approach
>> that probably doesn't work for ARIN as a whole. I don't see any of the
>> limits he mentions codified e.g. the NANOG PPCs aren't codified in the PDP.
>>
>>
>>
>>  Martin -
>>
>>  I already noted that per the Policy Development Process, policy
>> discussions
>> take place on the PPML mailing list and at PPCs.  Regarding where PPCs
>> occur, please again reference the PPC definition within the Policy
>> Development
>> Process <https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html> -
>>
>>  "Public Policy Consultation (PPC)
>>
>>  An open public discussion held by ARIN of Internet number resource
>> policy that provides for the contemporaneous interaction and polling of
>> in-person and remote participants. These consultations may be held at
>> ARIN's Public Policy Meetings and at other related forums as approved by
>> the ARIN Board of Trustees."
>>
>
>  Thank for underscoring my point about the lack of clarity.
>
>
>  Actually, it's quite clearly laid out in the Policy Development Process
> [i.e. that the PPML mailing list and Public Policy Consultations (PPC)
> are the input to be considered and the definition of what is a PPC],
> but do not hesitate to ask if you have any further confusion in this area.
>
>

Thanks! We'll continue to disagree though. I'm sure there will be an
adequate solution forthcoming.

Best,

-M<
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141229/40a48fd1/attachment.htm>