From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Thu Dec 3 06:27:54 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 12:27:54 +0100 Subject: [arin-ppml] An interesting policy question Message-ID: Hi We all know that before the no need policy, when Ripe makes an assignment, while the "need" has changed, the assignment become invalid. The question come to what the definition of need. Below I have few examples, please provide your view: First one: Company A provides 100 customer dedicated server service at location A, Ripe makes an assignment for 100 IP for his infrastructure, if, under condition that no other factor was changed, Company A moved his infrastructure to location B, but still providing same service to same customer, does the company's action need to be notified to RIR? And does this action considered invalid the original assignment? Second one: Company A provides web hosting service, but any casted in 3 location, and has provided the evidence of 3 location to the RIR during the time the company getting valid assignment, then A decided to cut 3 location to 2 location, does this invalid original assignment and need to be notified to RIR? So the bottom line is, what is the definition of need, is it defined as the service you are providing or defined as whole package of any of original justification material was provided, if was the later, then does it imply that anything, including location of the infrastructure, upstream providers etc has changed due to operational need, it will be considered as change of purpose of use and need to be notified to RIR? What should be the right interpretation of the policy by then? -- -- Kind regards. Lu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Thu Dec 3 09:03:48 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 14:03:48 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] An interesting policy question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 3, 2015, at 6:27 AM, Lu Heng > wrote: Hi We all know that before the no need policy, when Ripe makes an assignment, while the "need" has changed, the assignment become invalid. The question come to what the definition of need. Below I have few examples, please provide your view: First one: Company A provides 100 customer dedicated server service at location A, Ripe makes an assignment for 100 IP for his infrastructure, if, under condition that no other factor was changed, Company A moved his infrastructure to location B, but still providing same service to same customer, does the company's action need to be notified to RIR? And does this action considered invalid the original assignment? Second one: Company A provides web hosting service, but any casted in 3 location, and has provided the evidence of 3 location to the RIR during the time the company getting valid assignment, then A decided to cut 3 location to 2 location, does this invalid original assignment and need to be notified to RIR? So the bottom line is, what is the definition of need, is it defined as the service you are providing or defined as whole package of any of original justification material was provided, if was the later, then does it imply that anything, including location of the infrastructure, upstream providers etc has changed due to operational need, it will be considered as change of purpose of use and need to be notified to RIR? What should be the right interpretation of the policy by then? Lu - The ARIN Public Policy Mailing list is a forum to raise and discuss policy-related ideas and issues surrounding existing and proposed ARIN policies. You should refer your question regarding RIPE policy matters to the appropriate RIPE mailing list. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bill at herrin.us Thu Dec 3 09:13:11 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 09:13:11 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] An interesting policy question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Lu Heng wrote: > Company A provides 100 customer dedicated server service at location A, Ripe > makes an assignment for 100 IP for his infrastructure, if, under condition > that no other factor was changed, Company A moved his infrastructure to > location B, but still providing same service to same customer, does the > company's action need to be notified to RIR? > > Company A provides web hosting service, but any casted in 3 location, and > has provided the evidence of 3 location to the RIR during the time the > company getting valid assignment, then A decided to cut 3 location to 2 > location, does this invalid original assignment and need to be notified to > RIR? Hi Lu, >From ARIN's perspective (as I understand it) the answer is: 1. No, the RIR does not need to be notified, BUT... 2. If the new locations are no longer in ARIN territory, those addresses are counted as unused the next time that organization wants addresses from ARIN. As a result, the organization may not qualify for more addresses. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From jschiller at google.com Thu Dec 3 09:26:54 2015 From: jschiller at google.com (Jason Schiller) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 09:26:54 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] An interesting policy question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: One clarification on Bill's email. >From ARIN's perspective (as I understand it) the answer is: > >1. No, the RIR does not need to be notified, BUT... > >2. If the new locations are no longer in ARIN territory, those >addresses are counted as unused the next time that organization wants >addresses from ARIN. As a result, the organization may not qualify for >more addresses. If the IP addresses are used outside of the ARIN service region, but part of a globally contagious network that exists in part in the ARIN service region and the covering aggregate is announced from within the ARIN service region (also announcing the aggregate and / or more specific outside of the ARIN service region is acceptable), the the addresses can be considered utilized (assuming they meet ARIN's definition of in use). If the IPs are for servers in a data center that is a stub network which is not contagious with a network in the ARIN service region then those IPs would not count as in use. If you total utilization is below 80% you would not qualify for more IP space. Bill, and my comments are based an multiple interactions with ARIN and Public Policy Meeting discussions surrounding "out of region use". If you truely want to know what if ARIN staff would consider a use case as justified, you should directly engage the ARIN staff. https://www.arin.net/contact_us.html __Jason On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:13 AM, William Herrin wrote: > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Lu Heng wrote: >> Company A provides 100 customer dedicated server service at location A, Ripe >> makes an assignment for 100 IP for his infrastructure, if, under condition >> that no other factor was changed, Company A moved his infrastructure to >> location B, but still providing same service to same customer, does the >> company's action need to be notified to RIR? >> >> Company A provides web hosting service, but any casted in 3 location, and >> has provided the evidence of 3 location to the RIR during the time the >> company getting valid assignment, then A decided to cut 3 location to 2 >> location, does this invalid original assignment and need to be notified to >> RIR? > > Hi Lu, > > >From ARIN's perspective (as I understand it) the answer is: > > 1. No, the RIR does not need to be notified, BUT... > > 2. If the new locations are no longer in ARIN territory, those > addresses are counted as unused the next time that organization wants > addresses from ARIN. As a result, the organization may not qualify for > more addresses. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > -- > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006 From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Thu Dec 3 09:34:44 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (h.lu at anytimechinese.com) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 15:34:44 +0100 Subject: [arin-ppml] An interesting policy question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <051D5EA7-EB9C-48A8-B510-FE1122FF6C7F@anytimechinese.com> Hi Sorry for the wording ripe, the question was intended for Arin policy, so under Arin current policy, does two example raised considered invalid the need? > On 3 Dec 2015, at 3:26 PM, Jason Schiller wrote: > > One clarification on Bill's email. > >> From ARIN's perspective (as I understand it) the answer is: >> >> 1. No, the RIR does not need to be notified, BUT... >> >> 2. If the new locations are no longer in ARIN territory, those >> addresses are counted as unused the next time that organization wants >> addresses from ARIN. As a result, the organization may not qualify for >> more addresses. > > If the IP addresses are used outside of the ARIN service region, but > part of a globally contagious network that exists in part in the ARIN > service region and the covering aggregate is announced from within the > ARIN service region (also announcing the aggregate and / or more > specific outside of the ARIN service region is acceptable), the the > addresses can be considered utilized (assuming they meet ARIN's > definition of in use). > > If the IPs are for servers in a data center that is a stub network > which is not contagious with a network in the ARIN service region then > those IPs would not count as in use. If you total utilization is > below 80% you would not qualify for more IP space. > > Bill, and my comments are based an multiple interactions with ARIN and > Public Policy Meeting discussions surrounding "out of region use". > > If you truely want to know what if ARIN staff would consider a use > case as justified, you should directly engage the ARIN staff. > > https://www.arin.net/contact_us.html > > __Jason > >> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:13 AM, William Herrin wrote: >>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Lu Heng wrote: >>> Company A provides 100 customer dedicated server service at location A, Ripe >>> makes an assignment for 100 IP for his infrastructure, if, under condition >>> that no other factor was changed, Company A moved his infrastructure to >>> location B, but still providing same service to same customer, does the >>> company's action need to be notified to RIR? >>> >>> Company A provides web hosting service, but any casted in 3 location, and >>> has provided the evidence of 3 location to the RIR during the time the >>> company getting valid assignment, then A decided to cut 3 location to 2 >>> location, does this invalid original assignment and need to be notified to >>> RIR? >> >> Hi Lu, >> >>> From ARIN's perspective (as I understand it) the answer is: >> >> 1. No, the RIR does not need to be notified, BUT... >> >> 2. If the new locations are no longer in ARIN territory, those >> addresses are counted as unused the next time that organization wants >> addresses from ARIN. As a result, the organization may not qualify for >> more addresses. >> >> Regards, >> Bill Herrin >> >> >> -- >> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us >> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > -- > _______________________________________________________ > Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006 From jcurran at arin.net Thu Dec 3 09:40:56 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 14:40:56 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] An interesting policy question In-Reply-To: <051D5EA7-EB9C-48A8-B510-FE1122FF6C7F@anytimechinese.com> References: <051D5EA7-EB9C-48A8-B510-FE1122FF6C7F@anytimechinese.com> Message-ID: <73BF8338-2EFF-4C3D-8B6C-6D394EE1205A@corp.arin.net> Lu - Bill and Jason?s remarks fairly reflect current policy - if you have a specific request that you need clarification with, please contact the Registration Services Helpdesk at ARIN. Thanks! /John > On Dec 3, 2015, at 9:34 AM, h.lu at anytimechinese.com wrote: > > Hi > > Sorry for the wording ripe, the question was intended for Arin policy, so under Arin current policy, does two example raised considered invalid the need? > > > >> On 3 Dec 2015, at 3:26 PM, Jason Schiller wrote: >> >> One clarification on Bill's email. >> >>> From ARIN's perspective (as I understand it) the answer is: >>> >>> 1. No, the RIR does not need to be notified, BUT... >>> >>> 2. If the new locations are no longer in ARIN territory, those >>> addresses are counted as unused the next time that organization wants >>> addresses from ARIN. As a result, the organization may not qualify for >>> more addresses. >> >> If the IP addresses are used outside of the ARIN service region, but >> part of a globally contagious network that exists in part in the ARIN >> service region and the covering aggregate is announced from within the >> ARIN service region (also announcing the aggregate and / or more >> specific outside of the ARIN service region is acceptable), the the >> addresses can be considered utilized (assuming they meet ARIN's >> definition of in use). >> >> If the IPs are for servers in a data center that is a stub network >> which is not contagious with a network in the ARIN service region then >> those IPs would not count as in use. If you total utilization is >> below 80% you would not qualify for more IP space. >> >> Bill, and my comments are based an multiple interactions with ARIN and >> Public Policy Meeting discussions surrounding "out of region use". >> >> If you truely want to know what if ARIN staff would consider a use >> case as justified, you should directly engage the ARIN staff. >> >> https://www.arin.net/contact_us.html >> >> __Jason >> >>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:13 AM, William Herrin wrote: >>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Lu Heng wrote: >>>> Company A provides 100 customer dedicated server service at location A, Ripe >>>> makes an assignment for 100 IP for his infrastructure, if, under condition >>>> that no other factor was changed, Company A moved his infrastructure to >>>> location B, but still providing same service to same customer, does the >>>> company's action need to be notified to RIR? >>>> >>>> Company A provides web hosting service, but any casted in 3 location, and >>>> has provided the evidence of 3 location to the RIR during the time the >>>> company getting valid assignment, then A decided to cut 3 location to 2 >>>> location, does this invalid original assignment and need to be notified to >>>> RIR? >>> >>> Hi Lu, >>> >>>> From ARIN's perspective (as I understand it) the answer is: >>> >>> 1. No, the RIR does not need to be notified, BUT... >>> >>> 2. If the new locations are no longer in ARIN territory, those >>> addresses are counted as unused the next time that organization wants >>> addresses from ARIN. As a result, the organization may not qualify for >>> more addresses. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Bill Herrin >>> >>> >>> -- >>> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us >>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PPML >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> >> >> -- >> _______________________________________________________ >> Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006 > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 h.lu at anytimechinese.com Thu Dec 3 09:55:02 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 15:55:02 +0100 Subject: [arin-ppml] An interesting policy question In-Reply-To: <73BF8338-2EFF-4C3D-8B6C-6D394EE1205A@corp.arin.net> References: <051D5EA7-EB9C-48A8-B510-FE1122FF6C7F@anytimechinese.com> <73BF8338-2EFF-4C3D-8B6C-6D394EE1205A@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: Hi: Thanks for quick reply, and sorry about my English ability.Below is what my understanding to the reply: Example 1: No, there is no need to notify ARIN simply because change of location.( provided other fact stay the same) Example 2. In case of 3 location shrinking to 2 location, there is also no need to notify ARIN provided the service stay the same.(in-out region does not relevant here as the number of location is decreased, so even there is an out region location was notified ARIN during application process in the first place) Correct me if I might be mistaken. On Thursday, 3 December 2015, John Curran wrote: > Lu - > > Bill and Jason?s remarks fairly reflect current policy - if you have a > specific request > that you need clarification with, please contact the Registration Services > Helpdesk > at ARIN. > > Thanks! > /John > > > On Dec 3, 2015, at 9:34 AM, h.lu at anytimechinese.com > wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > Sorry for the wording ripe, the question was intended for Arin policy, > so under Arin current policy, does two example raised considered invalid > the need? > > > > > > > >> On 3 Dec 2015, at 3:26 PM, Jason Schiller > wrote: > >> > >> One clarification on Bill's email. > >> > >>> From ARIN's perspective (as I understand it) the answer is: > >>> > >>> 1. No, the RIR does not need to be notified, BUT... > >>> > >>> 2. If the new locations are no longer in ARIN territory, those > >>> addresses are counted as unused the next time that organization wants > >>> addresses from ARIN. As a result, the organization may not qualify for > >>> more addresses. > >> > >> If the IP addresses are used outside of the ARIN service region, but > >> part of a globally contagious network that exists in part in the ARIN > >> service region and the covering aggregate is announced from within the > >> ARIN service region (also announcing the aggregate and / or more > >> specific outside of the ARIN service region is acceptable), the the > >> addresses can be considered utilized (assuming they meet ARIN's > >> definition of in use). > >> > >> If the IPs are for servers in a data center that is a stub network > >> which is not contagious with a network in the ARIN service region then > >> those IPs would not count as in use. If you total utilization is > >> below 80% you would not qualify for more IP space. > >> > >> Bill, and my comments are based an multiple interactions with ARIN and > >> Public Policy Meeting discussions surrounding "out of region use". > >> > >> If you truely want to know what if ARIN staff would consider a use > >> case as justified, you should directly engage the ARIN staff. > >> > >> https://www.arin.net/contact_us.html > >> > >> __Jason > >> > >>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:13 AM, William Herrin > wrote: > >>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Lu Heng > wrote: > >>>> Company A provides 100 customer dedicated server service at location > A, Ripe > >>>> makes an assignment for 100 IP for his infrastructure, if, under > condition > >>>> that no other factor was changed, Company A moved his infrastructure > to > >>>> location B, but still providing same service to same customer, does > the > >>>> company's action need to be notified to RIR? > >>>> > >>>> Company A provides web hosting service, but any casted in 3 location, > and > >>>> has provided the evidence of 3 location to the RIR during the time the > >>>> company getting valid assignment, then A decided to cut 3 location to > 2 > >>>> location, does this invalid original assignment and need to be > notified to > >>>> RIR? > >>> > >>> Hi Lu, > >>> > >>>> From ARIN's perspective (as I understand it) the answer is: > >>> > >>> 1. No, the RIR does not need to be notified, BUT... > >>> > >>> 2. If the new locations are no longer in ARIN territory, those > >>> addresses are counted as unused the next time that organization wants > >>> addresses from ARIN. As a result, the organization may not qualify for > >>> more addresses. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Bill Herrin > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com > bill at herrin.us > >>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> PPML > >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net > ). > >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any > issues. > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> _______________________________________________________ > >> Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com |571-266-0006 > > _______________________________________________ > > PPML > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net ). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any > issues. > > -- -- Kind regards. Lu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Thu Dec 3 11:06:31 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 16:06:31 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] An interesting policy question In-Reply-To: References: <051D5EA7-EB9C-48A8-B510-FE1122FF6C7F@anytimechinese.com> <73BF8338-2EFF-4C3D-8B6C-6D394EE1205A@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <17FC320D-6EB3-4044-88E4-C6D601C24D62@arin.net> On Dec 3, 2015, at 9:55 AM, Lu Heng wrote: > > Hi: > > Thanks for quick reply, and sorry about my English ability.Below is what my understanding to the reply: > > Example 1: > > No, there is no need to notify ARIN simply because change of location.( provided other fact stay the same) > > Example 2. > > In case of 3 location shrinking to 2 location, there is also no need to notify ARIN provided the service stay the same.(in-out region does not relevant here as the number of location is decreased, so even there is an out region location was notified ARIN during application process in the first place) Essentially correct, noting that changes in circumstances may cause review of the already-approved resource request if there is reason to believe that original resource request was fraudulent in nature. This is similar to cases where a party requests resources baed on is own need, is approved, and then undergoes a ?change in circumstance? such that they wish to now transfer those resources to another party instead... Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From bill at herrin.us Thu Dec 3 11:08:13 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:08:13 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] An interesting policy question In-Reply-To: References: <051D5EA7-EB9C-48A8-B510-FE1122FF6C7F@anytimechinese.com> <73BF8338-2EFF-4C3D-8B6C-6D394EE1205A@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Lu Heng wrote: > Thanks for quick reply, and sorry about my English ability.Below is what my > understanding to the reply: > > Example 1: > > No, there is no need to notify ARIN simply because change of location.( > provided other fact stay the same) > > Example 2. > > In case of 3 location shrinking to 2 location, there is also no need to > notify ARIN provided the service stay the same.(in-out region does not > relevant here as the number of location is decreased, so even there is an > out region location was notified ARIN during application process in the > first place) > > Correct me if I might be mistaken. Howdy, That's generally correct. One caveat: Internet Service Providers and SWIP. Folks with ISP allocations (not end-user assignments) are expected to maintain accurate SWIP records with ARIN. To the extent that location was reported in the original SWIP records, it would need to be updated. >From what I understand, internal infrastructure generally doesn't get reported with any location details. SWIP is intended mostly to report customer assignments. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From ctacit at tacitlaw.com Thu Dec 3 14:35:07 2015 From: ctacit at tacitlaw.com (Christian Tacit) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 19:35:07 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Proposal ARIN-2015-8 Message-ID: <895b76f415384d88a44d814bf5d91722@S05-MBX03-12.S05.local> I am writing on behalf of the ARIN AC to seek additional input from the community regarding how (or if) we should proceed with ARIN-2015-8. The feedback received at ARIN 36 and in subsequent AC discussions has been very mixed and there is no community consensus for the proposal in its present form. Some of the main points made at ARIN 36 and the subsequent AC meeting were: 1. Orgs should not be able to by-pass the fee structures and other policy consequences of being classified as ISPs, and the draft policy would facilitate this type of by-pass; 2. Some of those who shared the concern in point 1. said that they would still support allowing Orgs to SWIP to themselves (and possibly to related Orgs) to facilitate geolocation and this will be even more important in an IPv6 environment where assigned address blocks are much bigger and so often not used at one location; 3. ARIN already allows RWHOIS to be used by End-Users, which leads to the question of whether this avenue should be foreclosed, End-User SWIPs should be allowed or the status quo should be left in place; 4. Should End-Users who want to be able to re-assign records simply be required to become ISPs? 5. Should the ISP/End-User distinction be eliminated (which is a bigger discussion outside the scope of the current problem statement)? 6. If the ISP/End-User fee distinction were eliminated, would there still be opposition to the draft policy? 7. To what extent is there value or do problems get created if End-Users can SWIP (i.e., improving the accuracy of database information vs. possibly facilitating a "grey market" where the true registered users of numbering resources are not known)? and 8. Does the problem statement need to be reformulated, and if so, how? If you would like to see further work on this policy, please let us at the AC know what form you think that work should take. If you think the policy should be abandonded altogether we would like to know that as well. Thank you. Chris Christian S. Tacit, Tacit Law P.O. Box 24210 RPO Hazeldean Kanata, Ontario K2M 2C3 Canada Tel: +1 613 599 5345 Fax: +1 613 248 5175 E-mail: ctacit at tacitlaw.com This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is subject to copyright, privileged, confidential, proprietary or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, distributing, copying or in any way using this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and destroy or delete copies you may have received. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjones at vt.edu Thu Dec 3 15:41:17 2015 From: bjones at vt.edu (Brian Jones) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 15:41:17 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Proposal ARIN-2015-8 In-Reply-To: <895b76f415384d88a44d814bf5d91722@S05-MBX03-12.S05.local> References: <895b76f415384d88a44d814bf5d91722@S05-MBX03-12.S05.local> Message-ID: On Dec 3, 2015 2:35 PM, "Christian Tacit" wrote: > > I am writing on behalf of the ARIN AC to seek additional input from the community regarding how (or if) we should proceed with ARIN-2015-8. > > > > The feedback received at ARIN 36 and in subsequent AC discussions has been very mixed and there is no community consensus for the proposal in its present form. > > > > Some of the main points made at ARIN 36 and the subsequent AC meeting were: > > > > 1. Orgs should not be able to by-pass the fee structures and other policy consequences of being classified as ISPs, and the draft policy would facilitate this type of by-pass; > > 2. Some of those who shared the concern in point 1. said that they would still support allowing Orgs to SWIP to themselves (and possibly to related Orgs) to facilitate geolocation and this will be even more important in an IPv6 environment where assigned address blocks are much bigger and so often not used at one location; > > 3. ARIN already allows RWHOIS to be used by End-Users, which leads to the question of whether this avenue should be foreclosed, End-User SWIPs should be allowed or the status quo should be left in place; > > 4. Should End-Users who want to be able to re-assign records simply be required to become ISPs? I am strongly opposed to a requirement for end users to become ISPs solely for the purpose of re-assigning records. Cost is not the only concern here. > > 5. Should the ISP/End-User distinction be eliminated (which is a bigger discussion outside the scope of the current problem statement)? Possibly. However if this causes costs to increase for end users, then I would say no. As a state university keeping ongoing costs to a minimum is imperative to operation. We don't make money so justifying additional costs for the same resources is nearly impossible. > > 6. If the ISP/End-User fee distinction were eliminated, would there still be opposition to the draft policy? This depends on what happens to end user costs, see above. > > 7. To what extent is there value or do problems get created if End-Users can SWIP (i.e., improving the accuracy of database information vs. possibly facilitating a ?grey market? where the true registered users of numbering resources are not known)? and > Improving accuracy of database information is a necessary axiom, but it is arguable as to whether end user access improves or lessens database accuracy. > 8. Does the problem statement need to be reformulated, and if so, how? > > > > If you would like to see further work on this policy, please let us at the AC know what form you think that work should take. If you think the policy should be abandonded altogether we would like to know that as well. > > > > Thank you. > > > > Chris > > > Christian S. Tacit, > Tacit Law > > P.O. Box 24210 RPO Hazeldean > Kanata, Ontario > K2M 2C3 Canada > > Tel: +1 613 599 5345 > Fax: +1 613 248 5175 > E-mail: ctacit at tacitlaw.com > > This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is subject to copyright, privileged, confidential, proprietary or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, distributing, copying or in any way using this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and destroy or delete copies you may have received. > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bill at herrin.us Thu Dec 3 15:48:21 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 15:48:21 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Proposal ARIN-2015-8 In-Reply-To: <895b76f415384d88a44d814bf5d91722@S05-MBX03-12.S05.local> References: <895b76f415384d88a44d814bf5d91722@S05-MBX03-12.S05.local> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Christian Tacit wrote: > I am writing on behalf of the ARIN AC to seek additional input from the > community regarding how (or if) we should proceed with ARIN-2015-8. Hi Christian, My views are: A. Abandon 2015-8. It's a poorly conceived answer to a wrong question. B. The right question is in your point 5: "Should the ISP/End-User distinction be eliminated?" C. The answer to question B is: Yes. In every respect. Period. (Note that my answer to question B likely requires me personally to pay more many even though I get little value for it. I stand by my answer regardless.) Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Dec 4 00:53:03 2015 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 00:53:03 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201512040553.tB45r4Rp032535@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 13 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Dec 4 00:53:03 EST 2015 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 23.08% | 3 | 28.79% | 41205 | h.lu at anytimechinese.com 23.08% | 3 | 20.39% | 29189 | jcurran at arin.net 23.08% | 3 | 13.94% | 19948 | bill at herrin.us 7.69% | 1 | 14.27% | 20419 | ctacit at tacitlaw.com 7.69% | 1 | 11.11% | 15900 | bjones at vt.edu 7.69% | 1 | 6.68% | 9568 | jschiller at google.com 7.69% | 1 | 4.82% | 6902 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 13 |100.00% | 143131 | Total From jrdelacruz at acm.org Fri Dec 4 06:48:14 2015 From: jrdelacruz at acm.org (Jose R. de la Cruz III) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 07:48:14 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Proposal ARIN-2015-8 In-Reply-To: <895b76f415384d88a44d814bf5d91722@S05-MBX03-12.S05.local> References: <895b76f415384d88a44d814bf5d91722@S05-MBX03-12.S05.local> Message-ID: RE: ARIN-2015-8 4. Should End-Users who want to be able to re-assign records simply be required to become ISPs? --->No. Why should they? 5. Should the ISP/End-User distinction be eliminated (which is a bigger discussion outside the scope of the current problem statement)? ---> No. They are different type of business entities and should be serviced according to their needs. Jos? jrdelacruz at acm.org On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Christian Tacit wrote: > I am writing on behalf of the ARIN AC to seek additional input from the > community regarding how (or if) we should proceed with ARIN-2015-8. > > > > The feedback received at ARIN 36 and in subsequent AC discussions has been > very mixed and there is no community consensus for the proposal in its > present form. > > > > Some of the main points made at ARIN 36 and the subsequent AC meeting were: > > > > 1. Orgs should not be able to by-pass the fee structures and other > policy consequences of being classified as ISPs, and the draft policy would > facilitate this type of by-pass; > > 2. Some of those who shared the concern in point 1. said that they > would still support allowing Orgs to SWIP to themselves (and possibly to > related Orgs) to facilitate geolocation and this will be even more > important in an IPv6 environment where assigned address blocks are much > bigger and so often not used at one location; > > 3. ARIN already allows RWHOIS to be used by End-Users, which leads to > the question of whether this avenue should be foreclosed, End-User SWIPs > should be allowed or the status quo should be left in place; > > 4. Should End-Users who want to be able to re-assign records simply > be required to become ISPs? > > 5. Should the ISP/End-User distinction be eliminated (which is a > bigger discussion outside the scope of the current problem statement)? > > 6. If the ISP/End-User fee distinction were eliminated, would there > still be opposition to the draft policy? > > 7. To what extent is there value or do problems get created if > End-Users can SWIP (i.e., improving the accuracy of database information > vs. possibly facilitating a ?grey market? where the true registered users > of numbering resources are not known)? and > > 8. Does the problem statement need to be reformulated, and if so, how? > > > > If you would like to see further work on this policy, please let us at the > AC know what form you think that work should take. If you think the policy > should be abandonded altogether we would like to know that as well. > > > > Thank you. > > > > Chris > > > Christian S. Tacit, > Tacit Law > > P.O. Box 24210 RPO Hazeldean > Kanata, Ontario > K2M 2C3 Canada > > Tel: +1 613 599 5345 > Fax: +1 613 248 5175 > E-mail: ctacit at tacitlaw.com > > This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to > which it is addressed and may contain information that is subject to > copyright, privileged, confidential, proprietary or exempt from disclosure > under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or the person > responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are > strictly prohibited from disclosing, distributing, copying or in any way > using this message. If you have received this communication in error, > please notify the sender and destroy or delete copies you may have > received. > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Fri Dec 4 07:43:01 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:43:01 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Proposal ARIN-2015-8 In-Reply-To: References: <895b76f415384d88a44d814bf5d91722@S05-MBX03-12.S05.local> Message-ID: <0176726A-6190-48F2-A18C-C0E6683438F9@corp.arin.net> On Dec 4, 2015, at 6:48 AM, Jose R. de la Cruz III > wrote: RE: ARIN-2015-8 4. Should End-Users who want to be able to re-assign records simply be required to become ISPs? --->No. Why should they? 5. Should the ISP/End-User distinction be eliminated (which is a bigger discussion outside the scope of the current problem statement)? ---> No. They are different type of business entities and should be serviced according to their needs. I have no comment either way regarding the particular policy proposal under discussion, but would like to provide some background that may aid in further consideration of the question: - The distinction between ?end-user? and ?ISP? is very clear in many cases, but not universally. Examples where it is less clear include university and college systems, large enterprises which may provide services to many entities of various degrees of affiliation (wholly-owned, partially-owned, joint entity, business partner), hosting/cloud/cdn providers (where the line between infrastructure and customer can be quite blurry at times), etc. - The desire to between ISP and End-User (or visa-versa) may be driven by fee or policy motivations, but we have seen an increase in end-users who wish to re-assign blocks in order to have more accurate information in the database regarding the actual address usage, particularly with respect to their geolocation data. Today ARIN tries to work with ISPs and end-users who wish to change their categorization, but understandly we lack clear guidance for what is becoming an increasingly blurry distinction. For additional context, refer to the ARIN 31 Policy Experience Report (where this issue was raised) - https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_31/PDF/monday/nobile_policy.pdf Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Sat Dec 5 22:27:40 2015 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2015 19:27:40 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] An interesting policy question In-Reply-To: <73BF8338-2EFF-4C3D-8B6C-6D394EE1205A@corp.arin.net> References: <051D5EA7-EB9C-48A8-B510-FE1122FF6C7F@anytimechinese.com> <73BF8338-2EFF-4C3D-8B6C-6D394EE1205A@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: WHile the RIR does not need to be notified, it will effectively be notified when the WHOIS records are updated to reflect location B, assuming that the entire block is moved to location B. Owen > On Dec 3, 2015, at 06:40 , John Curran wrote: > > Lu - > > Bill and Jason?s remarks fairly reflect current policy - if you have a specific request > that you need clarification with, please contact the Registration Services Helpdesk > at ARIN. > > Thanks! > /John > >> On Dec 3, 2015, at 9:34 AM, h.lu at anytimechinese.com wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> Sorry for the wording ripe, the question was intended for Arin policy, so under Arin current policy, does two example raised considered invalid the need? >> >> >> >>> On 3 Dec 2015, at 3:26 PM, Jason Schiller wrote: >>> >>> One clarification on Bill's email. >>> >>>> From ARIN's perspective (as I understand it) the answer is: >>>> >>>> 1. No, the RIR does not need to be notified, BUT... >>>> >>>> 2. If the new locations are no longer in ARIN territory, those >>>> addresses are counted as unused the next time that organization wants >>>> addresses from ARIN. As a result, the organization may not qualify for >>>> more addresses. >>> >>> If the IP addresses are used outside of the ARIN service region, but >>> part of a globally contagious network that exists in part in the ARIN >>> service region and the covering aggregate is announced from within the >>> ARIN service region (also announcing the aggregate and / or more >>> specific outside of the ARIN service region is acceptable), the the >>> addresses can be considered utilized (assuming they meet ARIN's >>> definition of in use). >>> >>> If the IPs are for servers in a data center that is a stub network >>> which is not contagious with a network in the ARIN service region then >>> those IPs would not count as in use. If you total utilization is >>> below 80% you would not qualify for more IP space. >>> >>> Bill, and my comments are based an multiple interactions with ARIN and >>> Public Policy Meeting discussions surrounding "out of region use". >>> >>> If you truely want to know what if ARIN staff would consider a use >>> case as justified, you should directly engage the ARIN staff. >>> >>> https://www.arin.net/contact_us.html >>> >>> __Jason >>> >>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:13 AM, William Herrin wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Lu Heng wrote: >>>>> Company A provides 100 customer dedicated server service at location A, Ripe >>>>> makes an assignment for 100 IP for his infrastructure, if, under condition >>>>> that no other factor was changed, Company A moved his infrastructure to >>>>> location B, but still providing same service to same customer, does the >>>>> company's action need to be notified to RIR? >>>>> >>>>> Company A provides web hosting service, but any casted in 3 location, and >>>>> has provided the evidence of 3 location to the RIR during the time the >>>>> company getting valid assignment, then A decided to cut 3 location to 2 >>>>> location, does this invalid original assignment and need to be notified to >>>>> RIR? >>>> >>>> Hi Lu, >>>> >>>>> From ARIN's perspective (as I understand it) the answer is: >>>> >>>> 1. No, the RIR does not need to be notified, BUT... >>>> >>>> 2. If the new locations are no longer in ARIN territory, those >>>> addresses are counted as unused the next time that organization wants >>>> addresses from ARIN. As a result, the organization may not qualify for >>>> more addresses. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Bill Herrin >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us >>>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PPML >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> _______________________________________________________ >>> Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006 >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage 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 h.lu at anytimechinese.com Sun Dec 6 04:16:27 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 10:16:27 +0100 Subject: [arin-ppml] An interesting policy question In-Reply-To: References: <051D5EA7-EB9C-48A8-B510-FE1122FF6C7F@anytimechinese.com> <73BF8338-2EFF-4C3D-8B6C-6D394EE1205A@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: Owen: You do not need to reply me in each list and while only in ARIN, the answer seems reasonable. On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > WHile the RIR does not need to be notified, it will effectively be > notified when > the WHOIS records are updated to reflect location B, assuming that the > entire > block is moved to location B. > > Owen > > > On Dec 3, 2015, at 06:40 , John Curran wrote: > > > > Lu - > > > > Bill and Jason?s remarks fairly reflect current policy - if you have a > specific request > > that you need clarification with, please contact the Registration > Services Helpdesk > > at ARIN. > > > > Thanks! > > /John > > > >> On Dec 3, 2015, at 9:34 AM, h.lu at anytimechinese.com wrote: > >> > >> Hi > >> > >> Sorry for the wording ripe, the question was intended for Arin policy, > so under Arin current policy, does two example raised considered invalid > the need? > >> > >> > >> > >>> On 3 Dec 2015, at 3:26 PM, Jason Schiller > wrote: > >>> > >>> One clarification on Bill's email. > >>> > >>>> From ARIN's perspective (as I understand it) the answer is: > >>>> > >>>> 1. No, the RIR does not need to be notified, BUT... > >>>> > >>>> 2. If the new locations are no longer in ARIN territory, those > >>>> addresses are counted as unused the next time that organization wants > >>>> addresses from ARIN. As a result, the organization may not qualify for > >>>> more addresses. > >>> > >>> If the IP addresses are used outside of the ARIN service region, but > >>> part of a globally contagious network that exists in part in the ARIN > >>> service region and the covering aggregate is announced from within the > >>> ARIN service region (also announcing the aggregate and / or more > >>> specific outside of the ARIN service region is acceptable), the the > >>> addresses can be considered utilized (assuming they meet ARIN's > >>> definition of in use). > >>> > >>> If the IPs are for servers in a data center that is a stub network > >>> which is not contagious with a network in the ARIN service region then > >>> those IPs would not count as in use. If you total utilization is > >>> below 80% you would not qualify for more IP space. > >>> > >>> Bill, and my comments are based an multiple interactions with ARIN and > >>> Public Policy Meeting discussions surrounding "out of region use". > >>> > >>> If you truely want to know what if ARIN staff would consider a use > >>> case as justified, you should directly engage the ARIN staff. > >>> > >>> https://www.arin.net/contact_us.html > >>> > >>> __Jason > >>> > >>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:13 AM, William Herrin > wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Lu Heng > wrote: > >>>>> Company A provides 100 customer dedicated server service at location > A, Ripe > >>>>> makes an assignment for 100 IP for his infrastructure, if, under > condition > >>>>> that no other factor was changed, Company A moved his infrastructure > to > >>>>> location B, but still providing same service to same customer, does > the > >>>>> company's action need to be notified to RIR? > >>>>> > >>>>> Company A provides web hosting service, but any casted in 3 > location, and > >>>>> has provided the evidence of 3 location to the RIR during the time > the > >>>>> company getting valid assignment, then A decided to cut 3 location > to 2 > >>>>> location, does this invalid original assignment and need to be > notified to > >>>>> RIR? > >>>> > >>>> Hi Lu, > >>>> > >>>>> From ARIN's perspective (as I understand it) the answer is: > >>>> > >>>> 1. No, the RIR does not need to be notified, BUT... > >>>> > >>>> 2. If the new locations are no longer in ARIN territory, those > >>>> addresses are counted as unused the next time that organization wants > >>>> addresses from ARIN. As a result, the organization may not qualify for > >>>> more addresses. > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Bill Herrin > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > >>>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> PPML > >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> _______________________________________________________ > >>> Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006 > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PPML > >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > >> Unsubscribe or manage 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. > > -- -- Kind regards. Lu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrdelacruz at acm.org Sun Dec 6 16:03:44 2015 From: jrdelacruz at acm.org (Jose R. de la Cruz III) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 17:03:44 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Proposal ARIN-2015-8 In-Reply-To: <0176726A-6190-48F2-A18C-C0E6683438F9@corp.arin.net> References: <895b76f415384d88a44d814bf5d91722@S05-MBX03-12.S05.local> <0176726A-6190-48F2-A18C-C0E6683438F9@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: John: Thanks for the additional info. It looks like the problem brought forth in the referenced document was never completely solved. Because an end user is defined as "*an organization receiving assignments of IP addresses exclusively for use in its operational networks*.", it is my opinion that the "*exclusively*" part of the definition maybe the one creating some problems. In the "large enterprises which may provide services to many entities of various degrees of affiliation" example, the *exclusively *part of the definition should not apply. The question is, are these organizations actively involved in the reassigning that IP space to their customers? Although no formal definition for ISP is included in the policy manual, an ISP does not fit into the end user definition. Would a definition for ISP provide a clear guidance in thesubject? How should hosting/cloud/cdn providers be categorized? Jos? On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 8:43 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Dec 4, 2015, at 6:48 AM, Jose R. de la Cruz III > wrote: > > > RE: ARIN-2015-8 > > 4. Should End-Users who want to be able to re-assign records simply > be required to become ISPs? > --->No. Why should they? > > 5. Should the ISP/End-User distinction be eliminated (which is a > bigger discussion outside the scope of the current problem statement)? > ---> No. They are different type of business entities and should be > serviced according to their needs. > > > I have no comment either way regarding the particular policy proposal under > discussion, but would like to provide some background that may aid in > further > consideration of the question: > > - The distinction between ?end-user? and ?ISP? is very clear in many > cases, > but not universally. Examples where it is less clear include university > and > college systems, large enterprises which may provide services to many > entities of various degrees of affiliation (wholly-owned, > partially-owned, > joint entity, business partner), hosting/cloud/cdn providers (where the > line > between infrastructure and customer can be quite blurry at times), etc. > > - The desire to between ISP and End-User (or visa-versa) may be driven > by fee or policy motivations, but we have seen an increase in end-users > who wish to re-assign blocks in order to have more accurate information > in the database regarding the actual address usage, particularly with > respect to their geolocation data. > > Today ARIN tries to work with ISPs and end-users who wish to change > their categorization, but understandly we lack clear guidance for what > is becoming an increasingly blurry distinction. For additional context, > refer to the ARIN 31 Policy Experience Report (where this issue was > raised) - > https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_31/PDF/monday/nobile_policy.pdf > > Thanks! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Sun Dec 6 18:42:22 2015 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:42:22 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Proposal ARIN-2015-8 In-Reply-To: References: <895b76f415384d88a44d814bf5d91722@S05-MBX03-12.S05.local> <0176726A-6190-48F2-A18C-C0E6683438F9@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <2B0537A0-F417-4BAB-8D85-C0B89A7B5F26@delong.com> Not speaking for John, but I don?t believe that would help because I believe that anything which does not meet the definition of an ?end user? is de fact an ISP. Creating a clear definition of ?ISP? would likely, instead, create a new category of organizations which fit neither defined category and suddenly find themselves without any way to interact with ARIN. I would not consider that to be an improvement. It may be that adding a statement to policy that any organization which does not meet the strict definition of ?End User? is therefore considered an ISP for policy purposes. Owen > On Dec 6, 2015, at 13:03 , Jose R. de la Cruz III wrote: > > John: > > Thanks for the additional info. It looks like the problem brought forth in the referenced document was never completely solved. Because an end user is defined as "an organization receiving assignments of IP addresses exclusively for use in its operational networks.", it is my opinion that the "exclusively" part of the definition maybe the one creating some problems. In the "large enterprises which may provide services to many entities of various degrees of affiliation" example, the exclusively part of the definition should not apply. The question is, are these organizations actively involved in the reassigning that IP space to their customers? > > Although no formal definition for ISP is included in the policy manual, an ISP does not fit into the end user definition. Would a definition for ISP provide a clear guidance in thesubject? How should hosting/cloud/cdn providers be categorized? > > Jos? > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 8:43 AM, John Curran > wrote: > On Dec 4, 2015, at 6:48 AM, Jose R. de la Cruz III > wrote: >> >> RE: ARIN-2015-8 >> >> 4. Should End-Users who want to be able to re-assign records simply be required to become ISPs? >> --->No. Why should they? >> >> 5. Should the ISP/End-User distinction be eliminated (which is a bigger discussion outside the scope of the current problem statement)? >> ---> No. They are different type of business entities and should be serviced according to their needs. > > I have no comment either way regarding the particular policy proposal under > discussion, but would like to provide some background that may aid in further > consideration of the question: > > - The distinction between ?end-user? and ?ISP? is very clear in many cases, > but not universally. Examples where it is less clear include university and > college systems, large enterprises which may provide services to many > entities of various degrees of affiliation (wholly-owned, partially-owned, > joint entity, business partner), hosting/cloud/cdn providers (where the line > between infrastructure and customer can be quite blurry at times), etc. > > - The desire to between ISP and End-User (or visa-versa) may be driven > by fee or policy motivations, but we have seen an increase in end-users > who wish to re-assign blocks in order to have more accurate information > in the database regarding the actual address usage, particularly with > respect to their geolocation data. > > Today ARIN tries to work with ISPs and end-users who wish to change > their categorization, but understandly we lack clear guidance for what > is becoming an increasingly blurry distinction. For additional context, > refer to the ARIN 31 Policy Experience Report (where this issue was > raised) - https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_31/PDF/monday/nobile_policy.pdf > > Thanks! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From David.Huberman at microsoft.com Sun Dec 6 22:32:38 2015 From: David.Huberman at microsoft.com (David Huberman) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 03:32:38 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Proposal ARIN-2015-8 In-Reply-To: <2B0537A0-F417-4BAB-8D85-C0B89A7B5F26@delong.com> References: <895b76f415384d88a44d814bf5d91722@S05-MBX03-12.S05.local> <0176726A-6190-48F2-A18C-C0E6683438F9@corp.arin.net> <2B0537A0-F417-4BAB-8D85-C0B89A7B5F26@delong.com> Message-ID: So I thought Jose?s email was very spot on. But I question the relevance of ANY distinction between ISP and End-user in 2016. In what way does the operator community benefit from a difference in rules (especially wrt Whois)? If we put aside the ARIN billing issue, and look at it purely from an inter-operator perspective, why is it good that ARIN policy and procedures differentiate between ISPs and End-users? Genuinely curious. David R Huberman Principal, Global IP Addressing Microsoft Corporation From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Sunday, December 6, 2015 3:42 PM To: Jose R. de la Cruz III Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Proposal ARIN-2015-8 Not speaking for John, but I don?t believe that would help because I believe that anything which does not meet the definition of an ?end user? is de fact an ISP. Creating a clear definition of ?ISP? would likely, instead, create a new category of organizations which fit neither defined category and suddenly find themselves without any way to interact with ARIN. I would not consider that to be an improvement. It may be that adding a statement to policy that any organization which does not meet the strict definition of ?End User? is therefore considered an ISP for policy purposes. Owen On Dec 6, 2015, at 13:03 , Jose R. de la Cruz III > wrote: John: Thanks for the additional info. It looks like the problem brought forth in the referenced document was never completely solved. Because an end user is defined as "an organization receiving assignments of IP addresses exclusively for use in its operational networks.", it is my opinion that the "exclusively" part of the definition maybe the one creating some problems. In the "large enterprises which may provide services to many entities of various degrees of affiliation" example, the exclusively part of the definition should not apply. The question is, are these organizations actively involved in the reassigning that IP space to their customers? Although no formal definition for ISP is included in the policy manual, an ISP does not fit into the end user definition. Would a definition for ISP provide a clear guidance in thesubject? How should hosting/cloud/cdn providers be categorized? Jos? On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 8:43 AM, John Curran > wrote: On Dec 4, 2015, at 6:48 AM, Jose R. de la Cruz III > wrote: RE: ARIN-2015-8 4. Should End-Users who want to be able to re-assign records simply be required to become ISPs? --->No. Why should they? 5. Should the ISP/End-User distinction be eliminated (which is a bigger discussion outside the scope of the current problem statement)? ---> No. They are different type of business entities and should be serviced according to their needs. I have no comment either way regarding the particular policy proposal under discussion, but would like to provide some background that may aid in further consideration of the question: - The distinction between ?end-user? and ?ISP? is very clear in many cases, but not universally. Examples where it is less clear include university and college systems, large enterprises which may provide services to many entities of various degrees of affiliation (wholly-owned, partially-owned, joint entity, business partner), hosting/cloud/cdn providers (where the line between infrastructure and customer can be quite blurry at times), etc. - The desire to between ISP and End-User (or visa-versa) may be driven by fee or policy motivations, but we have seen an increase in end-users who wish to re-assign blocks in order to have more accurate information in the database regarding the actual address usage, particularly with respect to their geolocation data. Today ARIN tries to work with ISPs and end-users who wish to change their categorization, but understandly we lack clear guidance for what is becoming an increasingly blurry distinction. For additional context, refer to the ARIN 31 Policy Experience Report (where this issue was raised) - https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_31/PDF/monday/nobile_policy.pdf Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Sun Dec 6 22:52:52 2015 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 19:52:52 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Proposal ARIN-2015-8 In-Reply-To: References: <895b76f415384d88a44d814bf5d91722@S05-MBX03-12.S05.local> <0176726A-6190-48F2-A18C-C0E6683438F9@corp.arin.net> <2B0537A0-F417-4BAB-8D85-C0B89A7B5F26@delong.com> Message-ID: Because as an end-user so long as we have IPv4, I count addresses assigned to hosts, while as an ISP, I count networks delegated to subscribers. In IPv6, it might be more plausible to homogenize, but still, as an end-user, I generally count sites (physical locations) while as an ISP, I count customer sites supported + my sites + subordinate ISPs delegated. I think that the differences in policy (even in a transfer regime for IPv4) are, in fact meaningful in this regard. Owen > On Dec 6, 2015, at 19:32 , David Huberman wrote: > > So I thought Jose?s email was very spot on.? <> > > But I question the relevance of ANY distinction between ISP and End-user in 2016. In what way does the operator community benefit from a difference in rules (especially wrt Whois)? If we put aside the ARIN billing issue, and look at it purely from an inter-operator perspective, why is it good that ARIN policy and procedures differentiate between ISPs and End-users? > > Genuinely curious. > > David R Huberman > Principal, Global IP Addressing > Microsoft Corporation > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong > Sent: Sunday, December 6, 2015 3:42 PM > To: Jose R. de la Cruz III > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Proposal ARIN-2015-8 > > Not speaking for John, but I don?t believe that would help because I believe that anything which > does not meet the definition of an ?end user? is de fact an ISP. > > Creating a clear definition of ?ISP? would likely, instead, create a new category of organizations > which fit neither defined category and suddenly find themselves without any way to interact with > ARIN. I would not consider that to be an improvement. > > It may be that adding a statement to policy that any organization which does not meet the strict > definition of ?End User? is therefore considered an ISP for policy purposes. > > Owen > > On Dec 6, 2015, at 13:03 , Jose R. de la Cruz III > wrote: > > John: > > Thanks for the additional info. It looks like the problem brought forth in the referenced document was never completely solved. Because an end user is defined as "an organization receiving assignments of IP addresses exclusively for use in its operational networks.", it is my opinion that the "exclusively" part of the definition maybe the one creating some problems. In the "large enterprises which may provide services to many entities of various degrees of affiliation" example, the exclusively part of the definition should not apply. The question is, are these organizations actively involved in the reassigning that IP space to their customers? > > Although no formal definition for ISP is included in the policy manual, an ISP does not fit into the end user definition. Would a definition for ISP provide a clear guidance in thesubject? How should hosting/cloud/cdn providers be categorized? > > Jos? > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 8:43 AM, John Curran > wrote: > On Dec 4, 2015, at 6:48 AM, Jose R. de la Cruz III > wrote: > > RE: ARIN-2015-8 > > 4. Should End-Users who want to be able to re-assign records simply be required to become ISPs? > --->No. Why should they? > > 5. Should the ISP/End-User distinction be eliminated (which is a bigger discussion outside the scope of the current problem statement)? > ---> No. They are different type of business entities and should be serviced according to their needs. > > I have no comment either way regarding the particular policy proposal under > discussion, but would like to provide some background that may aid in further > consideration of the question: > > - The distinction between ?end-user? and ?ISP? is very clear in many cases, > but not universally. Examples where it is less clear include university and > college systems, large enterprises which may provide services to many > entities of various degrees of affiliation (wholly-owned, partially-owned, > joint entity, business partner), hosting/cloud/cdn providers (where the line > between infrastructure and customer can be quite blurry at times), etc. > > - The desire to between ISP and End-User (or visa-versa) may be driven > by fee or policy motivations, but we have seen an increase in end-users > who wish to re-assign blocks in order to have more accurate information > in the database regarding the actual address usage, particularly with > respect to their geolocation data. > > Today ARIN tries to work with ISPs and end-users who wish to change > their categorization, but understandly we lack clear guidance for what > is becoming an increasingly blurry distinction. For additional context, > refer to the ARIN 31 Policy Experience Report (where this issue was > raised) - https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_31/PDF/monday/nobile_policy.pdf > > Thanks! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net ). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From David.Huberman at microsoft.com Sun Dec 6 23:02:30 2015 From: David.Huberman at microsoft.com (David Huberman) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 04:02:30 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Proposal ARIN-2015-8 In-Reply-To: References: <895b76f415384d88a44d814bf5d91722@S05-MBX03-12.S05.local> <0176726A-6190-48F2-A18C-C0E6683438F9@corp.arin.net> <2B0537A0-F417-4BAB-8D85-C0B89A7B5F26@delong.com> Message-ID: Thanks, Owen. Moving to the issue at hand, then, I have a problem with your wording. You wrote: "Because as an end-user so long as we have IPv4, I count addresses assigned to hosts, while as an ISP, I count networks delegated to subscribers." Then what's Microsoft? What's Akamai? Microsoft has "delegated networks" (whatever that means) to VMs for the exclusive use of a subscriber. We provide no last-mile connectivity to anyone. No one else can use the IP address while the host is provisioned, and it's questionable if the IP address is used exclusively for our infrastructure (it's not - the VM is outside the infrastructure - it's an edge device meant for access by a non-microsoft host) Does Akamai configure any VIPs where the content is for a subscriber (whatever that means), and not exclusively for use in your infrastructure? Maybe it's clear cut in Akamai's case. I don't know. But it's definitely not clear cut in the land of the cloud, or even in more traditional hosting setups (dedicated hosting, VPSes, etc.) where the customer accesses the equipment from their own last-mile network. So a possible solution is to redefine: ISP offers last-mile connectivity Everyone else is an EU. /david From hvgeekwtrvl at gmail.com Mon Dec 7 01:41:06 2015 From: hvgeekwtrvl at gmail.com (james machado) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 22:41:06 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Proposal ARIN-2015-8 In-Reply-To: References: <895b76f415384d88a44d814bf5d91722@S05-MBX03-12.S05.local> <0176726A-6190-48F2-A18C-C0E6683438F9@corp.arin.net> <2B0537A0-F417-4BAB-8D85-C0B89A7B5F26@delong.com> Message-ID: Good thoughts and valid points David, > David wrote: > > So a possible solution is to redefine: > > ISP offers last-mile connectivity > Everyone else is an EU. > and I like the direction your going but there is no requirement for your ISP to provide the last mile or even have a pop in your city. I grant you it is more common than not now but it's not so long ago (and may be for all i know) for a connection to an ISP be back hauled hundreds of miles to the "local" pop. A question I would have for John is what would the cost burden be to enable SWIP access for all entities? What audit/oversite burden is created for the ARIN staff in adding SWIP access? I am trying to determine from a cost standpoint would it be feasible to add SWIP access to everybody or for a "small" fee if the EU has need of it? James From jrdelacruz at acm.org Mon Dec 7 05:24:33 2015 From: jrdelacruz at acm.org (Jose R. de la Cruz III) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 06:24:33 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Proposal ARIN-2015-8 In-Reply-To: References: <895b76f415384d88a44d814bf5d91722@S05-MBX03-12.S05.local> <0176726A-6190-48F2-A18C-C0E6683438F9@corp.arin.net> <2B0537A0-F417-4BAB-8D85-C0B89A7B5F26@delong.com> Message-ID: Owen: "...*but I don?t believe that would help because I believe that anything which does not meet the definition of an ?end user? is de fact an ISP*." OK, this makes sense. But...what about the cdn's and similar uses? Then, should the 'end user' definition be broadened or changed? David: "*In what way does the operator community benefit from a difference in rules (especially wrt Whois)?* " Exactly. The issue is to find out if some distinction is needed in order to sort out the 'problems' stated by John. After reading the comments, it seems that access to the database is part of the issue. So, should end users have access to the database? It might well be that the 'definition' and 'access' issues are two separate problems that need to be addressed. Jos? On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 12:02 AM, David Huberman < David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote: > Thanks, Owen. > > Moving to the issue at hand, then, I have a problem with your wording. > > You wrote: > > "Because as an end-user so long as we have IPv4, I count addresses > assigned to hosts, while as an ISP, I count > networks delegated to subscribers." > > Then what's Microsoft? What's Akamai? > > Microsoft has "delegated networks" (whatever that means) to VMs for the > exclusive use of a subscriber. > We provide no last-mile connectivity to anyone. > No one else can use the IP address while the host is provisioned, and it's > questionable if the IP address is used exclusively for our infrastructure > (it's not - the VM is outside the infrastructure - it's an edge device > meant for access by a non-microsoft host) > > Does Akamai configure any VIPs where the content is for a subscriber > (whatever that means), and not exclusively for use in your infrastructure? > > Maybe it's clear cut in Akamai's case. I don't know. But it's definitely > not clear cut in the land of the cloud, or even in more traditional hosting > setups (dedicated hosting, VPSes, etc.) where the customer accesses the > equipment from their own last-mile network. > > > So a possible solution is to redefine: > > ISP offers last-mile connectivity > Everyone else is an EU. > > /david > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bill at herrin.us Mon Dec 7 12:43:31 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 12:43:31 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Proposal ARIN-2015-8 In-Reply-To: <2B0537A0-F417-4BAB-8D85-C0B89A7B5F26@delong.com> References: <895b76f415384d88a44d814bf5d91722@S05-MBX03-12.S05.local> <0176726A-6190-48F2-A18C-C0E6683438F9@corp.arin.net> <2B0537A0-F417-4BAB-8D85-C0B89A7B5F26@delong.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > It may be that adding a statement to policy that any organization which does > not meet the strict > definition of ?End User? is therefore considered an ISP for policy purposes. Something along the lines of, "An organization which reassigns any IP addresses to its customers' exclusive but not ephemeral use is an ISP?" Assuming we want to keep the distinction at all. Personally, I don't. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Dec 11 00:53:02 2015 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 00:53:02 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201512110553.tBB5r2KP001005@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 13 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Dec 11 00:53:02 EST 2015 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 23.08% | 3 | 30.44% | 63014 | owen at delong.com 23.08% | 3 | 22.12% | 45801 | jrdelacruz at acm.org 15.38% | 2 | 20.47% | 42370 | david.huberman at microsoft.com 7.69% | 1 | 10.24% | 21197 | h.lu at anytimechinese.com 7.69% | 1 | 6.96% | 14405 | jcurran at arin.net 7.69% | 1 | 3.38% | 6988 | narten at us.ibm.com 7.69% | 1 | 3.30% | 6842 | hvgeekwtrvl at gmail.com 7.69% | 1 | 3.09% | 6403 | bill at herrin.us --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 13 |100.00% | 207020 | Total From ron.baione at yahoo.com Thu Dec 17 17:30:15 2015 From: ron.baione at yahoo.com (Ron Baione) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:30:15 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Virtual Travel Via the Internet In-Reply-To: <2B0537A0-F417-4BAB-8D85-C0B89A7B5F26@delong.com> Message-ID: <1450391415.65239.YahooMailMobile@web121903.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> The internet is supposed to make it easier for businesses and business people to connect and get things done faster, like, for example, recruiting business people, but ironically internet governance connected groups spend most of their time physically traveling to places to get mostly nothing done, and say "more work needs to be done". Anybody remember NamesCon 2008? Me niether. There hasn't ever been a Conference that the whole world benefitted from, because conferences in the internet age are not meant for progress, conferences are just excuses for people to travel, to see and be seen, to party, in my opinion, and in my opinion proven by the fact that the internet's supposed and oft-mentioned purpose is to facilitate the entire business process, making the decision making/meeting process at conferences obsolete, unnecessary in a business sense, and also laughable, when some business people who could easily talk and compare business notes any time of day via the internet say, "Let's wait for the conference to decide on that." Why? So Travelers can say they are leaders who physically traveled to meet and talk with relevant business people, when I am as much of a leader writing this single critique via email as they are traveling to vegas to walk around and say, "ooh, that's interesting" 1000 times. While it might be fun to do, the internet community is waiting for real tangible progress and real solutions to real world problems and all the tech community has provided them in the past 12 months is an IWatch. I would argue that the "constant conference culture" limits real progress by getting people stuck in a never ending travel loop, where all they begin to care about is the quality of the next travel destination. Ron -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Thu Dec 17 18:24:52 2015 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 15:24:52 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Virtual Travel Via the Internet In-Reply-To: <1450391415.65239.YahooMailMobile@web121903.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1450391415.65239.YahooMailMobile@web121903.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > On Dec 17, 2015, at 14:30, Ron Baione wrote: > > > The internet is supposed to make it easier for businesses and business people to connect and get things done faster, like, for example, recruiting business people, but ironically internet governance connected groups spend most of their time physically traveling to places to get mostly nothing done, and say "more work needs to be done". > I disagree. First, as a member of an Internet governance group, I travel on average a total of 10-12 days per year for this purpose. We have 10 monthly telemeetings per year and 3 face to face meetings. (Accounting for 6 days of travel). The remaining days are spent on traveling to other RIR meetings or to outreach events. In addition, I spend 5-10 hours per week or more on average dealing with related list traffic. As a general rule, most of the items we work on are finalized within 18 months. I think a few have dragged on as much as 36 months, but they are rare. The minimum time for the standard process is roughly 6 months just in the process requirements. Rarely does the community come to consensus on the first draft of any policy proposal, thus extending the timeframe. > > Anybody remember NamesCon 2008? Me niether. There hasn't ever been a Conference that the whole world benefitted from, because conferences in the internet age are not meant for progress, conferences are just excuses for people to travel, to see and be seen, to party, in my opinion, and in my opinion proven by the fact that the internet's supposed and oft-mentioned purpose is to facilitate the entire business process, making the decision making/meeting process at conferences obsolete, unnecessary in a business sense, and also laughable, when some business people who could easily talk and compare business notes any time of day via the internet say, "Let's wait for the conference to decide on that." Why? > I'm sorry you feel that way. I can think of a few conferences where large fractions of the world have benefitted from the outcome. I also know that a great deal of progress on matters of substance actually does happen at parties. I can't think of any event online or otherwise that has benefitted the entire world because the world is vast and diverse and there's almost never any sort of universally good choice. Any such choice goes rapidly into the no brainier category and there is little or no need for discussion or deliberation as there's no controversy. Conferences are not obsolete. There is value to human interaction in person both in structured meetings and at parties. > > > So Travelers can say they are leaders who physically traveled to meet and talk with relevant business people, when I am as much of a leader writing this single critique via email as they are traveling to vegas to walk around and say, "ooh, that's interesting" 1000 times. While it might be fun to do, the internet community is waiting for real tangible progress and real solutions to real world problems and all the tech community has provided them in the past 12 months is an IWatch. I would argue that the "constant conference culture" limits real progress by getting people stuck in a never ending travel loop, where all they begin to care about is the quality of the next travel destination. > Indeed, if all they do is walk around and say that's interesting a bunch of times, they aren't much of a leader and/or it's not much of a conference. Nobody I know does that. I'm not sure why you chose to post this as a reply to our discussion of 2015-8, but it doesn't seem at all related to me. Owen > > > Ron > > From: Owen DeLong ; > To: Jose R. de la Cruz III ; > Cc: ; > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Proposal ARIN-2015-8 > Sent: Sun, Dec 6, 2015 11:42:22 PM > > Not speaking for John, but I don?t believe that would help because I believe that anything which > does not meet the definition of an ?end user? is de fact an ISP. > > Creating a clear definition of ?ISP? would likely, instead, create a new category of organizations > which fit neither defined category and suddenly find themselves without any way to interact with > ARIN. I would not consider that to be an improvement. > > It may be that adding a statement to policy that any organization which does not meet the strict > definition of ?End User? is therefore considered an ISP for policy purposes. > > Owen > >> On Dec 6, 2015, at 13:03 , Jose R. de la Cruz III wrote: >> >> John: >> >> Thanks for the additional info. It looks like the problem brought forth in the referenced document was never completely solved. Because an end user is defined as "an organization receiving assignments of IP addresses exclusively for use in its operational networks.", it is my opinion that the "exclusively" part of the definition maybe the one creating some problems. In the "large enterprises which may provide services to many entities of various degrees of affiliation" example, the exclusively part of the definition should not apply. The question is, are these organizations actively involved in the reassigning that IP space to their customers? >> >> Although no formal definition for ISP is included in the policy manual, an ISP does not fit into the end user definition. Would a definition for ISP provide a clear guidance in thesubject? How should hosting/cloud/cdn providers be categorized? >> >> Jos? >> >>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 8:43 AM, John Curran wrote: >>>> On Dec 4, 2015, at 6:48 AM, Jose R. de la Cruz III wrote: >>>> >>>> RE: ARIN-2015-8 >>>> >>>> 4. Should End-Users who want to be able to re-assign records simply be required to become ISPs? >>>> --->No. Why should they? >>>> >>>> 5. Should the ISP/End-User distinction be eliminated (which is a bigger discussion outside the scope of the current problem statement)? >>>> ---> No. They are different type of business entities and should be serviced according to their needs. >>> >>> I have no comment either way regarding the particular policy proposal under >>> discussion, but would like to provide some background that may aid in further >>> consideration of the question: >>> >>> - The distinction between ?end-user? and ?ISP? is very clear in many cases, >>> but not universally. Examples where it is less clear include university and >>> college systems, large enterprises which may provide services to many >>> entities of various degrees of affiliation (wholly-owned, partially-owned, >>> joint entity, business partner), hosting/cloud/cdn providers (where the line >>> between infrastructure and customer can be quite blurry at times), etc. >>> >>> - The desire to between ISP and End-User (or visa-versa) may be driven >>> by fee or policy motivations, but we have seen an increase in end-users >>> who wish to re-assign blocks in order to have more accurate information >>> in the database regarding the actual address usage, particularly with >>> respect to their geolocation data. >>> >>> Today ARIN tries to work with ISPs and end-users who wish to change >>> their categorization, but understandly we lack clear guidance for what >>> is becoming an increasingly blurry distinction. For additional context, >>> refer to the ARIN 31 Policy Experience Report (where this issue was >>> raised) - https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_31/PDF/monday/nobile_policy.pdf >>> >>> Thanks! >>> /John >>> >>> John Curran >>> President and CEO >>> ARIN >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From springer at inlandnet.com Thu Dec 17 19:38:06 2015 From: springer at inlandnet.com (John Springer) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 16:38:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [arin-ppml] Virtual Travel Via the Internet In-Reply-To: References: <1450391415.65239.YahooMailMobile@web121903.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Top posting here: You could try a policy proposal, which would certainly get the AC's attention, but this might be out of scope for policy. In addition to Owen's pertinent comments, suggestions of a non-policy nature may drawn to the attention of the Board of Trustees (and others) via the ASCP process: https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/acsp.html My opinion only. John Springer On Thu, 17 Dec 2015, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > On Dec 17, 2015, at 14:30, Ron Baione wrote: > > The internet is supposed to make it easier for businesses and business people to connect and get things done faster, like, for example, recruiting business > people, but ironically internet governance connected groups spend most of their time physically traveling to places to get mostly nothing done, and say > "more work needs to be done".? > > > I disagree. First, as a member of an Internet governance group, I travel on average a total of 10-12 days per year for this purpose. We have 10 monthly telemeetings > per year and 3 face to face meetings. (Accounting for 6 days of travel). The remaining days are spent on traveling to other RIR meetings or to outreach events.? > > In addition, I spend 5-10 hours per week or more on average dealing with related list traffic.? > > As a general rule, most of the items we work on are finalized within 18 months. I think a few have dragged on as much as 36 months, but they are rare. The minimum time > for the standard process is roughly 6 months just in the process requirements. Rarely does the community come to consensus on the first draft of any policy proposal, > thus extending the timeframe.? > > Anybody remember NamesCon 2008? Me niether. There hasn't ever been a Conference that the whole world benefitted from, because conferences in the internet > age are not meant for progress, conferences are just excuses for people to travel, to see and be seen, to party, in my opinion, and in my opinion proven by > the fact that the internet's supposed and oft-mentioned purpose is to facilitate the entire business process, making the decision making/meeting process at > conferences obsolete, unnecessary in a business sense, and also laughable, when some business people who could easily talk and compare business notes any > time of day via the internet say, "Let's wait for the conference to decide on that." Why?? > > > I'm sorry you feel that way. I can think of a few conferences where large fractions of the world have benefitted from the outcome. I also know that a great deal of > progress on matters of substance actually does happen at parties. ?I can't think of any event online or otherwise that has benefitted the entire world because the > world is vast and diverse and there's almost never any sort of universally good choice. Any such choice goes rapidly into the no brainier category and there is little > or no need for discussion or deliberation as there's no controversy.? > > Conferences are not obsolete. There is value to human interaction in person both in structured meetings and at parties.? > > So Travelers can say they are leaders who physically traveled to meet and talk with relevant business people, when I am as much of a leader writing this > single critique via email as they are traveling to vegas to walk around and say, "ooh, that's interesting" 1000 times. While it might be fun to do, the > internet community is waiting for real tangible progress and real solutions to real world problems and all the tech community has provided them in the past > 12 months is an IWatch. I would argue that the "constant conference culture" limits real progress by getting people stuck in a never ending travel loop, > where all they begin to care about is the quality of the next travel destination.? > > Indeed, if all they do is walk around and say that's interesting a bunch of times, they aren't much of a leader and/or it's not much of a conference. Nobody I know > does that.? > > I'm not sure why you chose to post this as a reply to our discussion of 2015-8, but it doesn't seem at all related to me.? > > Owen > > > Ron > > _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > From: Owen DeLong ; > To: Jose R. de la Cruz III ; > Cc: ; > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Proposal ARIN-2015-8 > Sent: Sun, Dec 6, 2015 11:42:22 PM > > Not speaking for John, but I don?t believe that would help because I believe that anything whichdoes not meet the definition of an ?end user? is de fact an ISP. > > Creating a clear definition of ?ISP? would likely, instead, create a new category of organizations > which fit neither defined category and suddenly find themselves without any way to interact with > ARIN. I would not consider that to be an improvement. > > It may be that adding a statement to policy that any organization which does not meet the strict > definition of ?End User? is therefore considered an ISP for policy purposes. > > Owen > > On Dec 6, 2015, at 13:03 , Jose R. de la Cruz III wrote: > > John: > > Thanks for the additional info. It looks like the problem brought forth in the referenced document was never completely solved. Because an end user is > defined as "an organization receiving assignments of IP addresses exclusively for use in its operational networks.", it is my opinion that the > "exclusively" part of the definition maybe the one creating some problems. In the "large enterprises which may provide services to many entities of various > degrees of affiliation" example,? the exclusively part of the definition should not apply. The question is, are these organizations actively involved in > the reassigning that IP space to their customers? > > Although no formal definition for ISP is included in the policy manual, an ISP does not fit into the end user definition. Would a definition for ISP > provide a clear guidance in thesubject? How should hosting/cloud/cdn providers be categorized? > > Jos? > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 8:43 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Dec 4, 2015, at 6:48 AM, Jose R. de la Cruz III wrote: > > RE: ARIN-2015-8 > > 4.?????Should End-Users who want to be able to re-assign records simply be required to become ISPs? > --->No. Why should they?? > > 5.?????Should the ISP/End-User distinction be eliminated (which is a bigger discussion outside the scope of the current problem statement)? > ---> No. They are different type of business entities and should be serviced according to their needs. > > > I have no comment either way regarding the particular policy proposal under > discussion, but would like to provide some background that may aid in further > consideration of the question: > > - The distinction between ?end-user? and ?ISP? is very clear in many cases,? > ? but not universally.? Examples where it is less clear include university and > ? college systems, large enterprises which may provide services to many? > ? entities of various degrees of affiliation (wholly-owned, partially-owned, > ? joint entity, business partner), hosting/cloud/cdn providers (where the line > ? between infrastructure and customer can be quite blurry at times), etc. > > - The desire to between ISP and End-User (or visa-versa) may be driven > ? ?by fee or policy motivations, but we have seen an increase in end-users > ? ?who wish to re-assign blocks in order to have more accurate information > ? ?in the database regarding the actual address usage, particularly with? > ? ?respect to their geolocation data.? > > Today ARIN tries to work with ISPs and end-users who wish to change? > their categorization, but understandly we lack clear guidance for what? > is becoming an increasingly blurry distinction. ? For additional context, > refer to the ARIN 31 Policy Experience Report (where this issue was? > raised) -?https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_31/PDF/monday/nobile_policy.pdf > > Thanks! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Dec 18 00:53:02 2015 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 00:53:02 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201512180553.tBI5r3Qv006472@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 4 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Dec 18 00:53:02 EST 2015 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 25.00% | 1 | 40.51% | 29463 | owen at delong.com 25.00% | 1 | 30.04% | 21850 | ron.baione at yahoo.com 25.00% | 1 | 19.79% | 14392 | springer at inlandnet.com 25.00% | 1 | 9.67% | 7033 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 4 |100.00% | 72738 | Total From info at arin.net Tue Dec 22 14:25:42 2015 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 14:25:42 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2015 Message-ID: <5679A3B6.8020202@arin.net> In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 17 December 2015. Having found the following Draft Policy to be fully developed and meeting ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy, the AC recommended it for adoption (to be posted separately for discussion as a Recommended Draft Policy): Draft Policy ARIN-2015-11: Remove transfer language which only applied pre-exhaustion of IPv4 pool The AC abandoned the following: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-8: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users The AC provided the following statement, "The ARIN AC has voted to abandon draft proposal ARIN-2015-8. Although a number of participants at ARIN 36 and on the PPML indicated support for investigation of greater harmonization of the services provided by ARIN to ISPs and End-Users, this specific proposal had no substantial community support. In fact, those who addressed themselves to the specific proposal, rather than broader issue of fees charged to ISPs vs. End-users or the types of services that ARIN should provide to each class of clients, did not support the specific proposal itself. Based on community feedback, we would suggest the broader issues be considered by ARIN, as part of a review of services." The AC is continuing to work on: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients) Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in end-user IPv4 policy Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks The AC abandoned 2015-8. Anyone dissatisfied with this decision may initiate a petition. The deadline to begin a petition will be five business days after the AC's draft meeting minutes are published. For more information on starting and participating in petitions, see PDP Petitions at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_petitions.html Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From info at arin.net Tue Dec 22 14:26:08 2015 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 14:26:08 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-11: Remove transfer language which only applied pre-exhaustion of IPv4 pool Message-ID: <5679A3D0.1060009@arin.net> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-11 Remove transfer language which only applied pre-exhaustion of IPv4 pool On 17 December 2015 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) recommended ARIN-2015-11 for adoption, making it a Recommended Draft Policy. ARIN-2015-11 is below and can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_11.html You are encouraged to discuss Draft Policy 2015-11 on the PPML prior to its presentation at the next ARIN Public Policy Consultation. 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-2015-11 Remove transfer language which only applied pre-exhaustion of IPv4 pool AC's assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy: ARIN 2015-11 contributes to fair and impartial number resource administration by removing from the NRPM text that has become inoperative since the depletion of the IPv4 free pool in September 2015, thereby avoiding confusion among people applying for 8.3 or 8.4 transfers. This proposal is technically sound, in that the removal of the text in question does not create any contradictions or loopholes in the application of policies that still matter. The proposal was supported by some community members on PPML and at the ARIN meeting in Montreal, and did not generate any opposition. Date: 23 September 2015 Problem Statement: The current policies in NRPM sections 8.3, and 8.4 include language which is in effect "until exhaustion." As ARIN is no longer able to fulfil IPv4 requests (per 01 July 2015 press release https://www.arin.net/about_us/media/releases/20150701.html), exhaustion has effectively occurred. This proposal serves to remove the outdated language from the NRPM. Policy statement: Remove sections of the NRPM which were only affective until IPv4 pool exhaustion occurred, as follows: Section 8.3 Transfers between Specified Recipients within the ARIN Region: - Remove entirely the second bullet which reads "The source entity will be ineligible to receive any further IPv4 address allocations or assignments from ARIN for a period of 12 months after a transfer approval, or until the exhaustion of ARIN's IPv4 space, whichever occurs first." Section 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients: - Remove entirely the third bullet which reads "Source entities within the ARIN region will not be eligible to receive any further IPv4 address allocations or assignments from ARIN for a period of 12 months after a transfer approval, or until the exhaustion of ARIN's IPv4 space, whichever occurs first." Comments: Timetable for implementation: Immediate ##### ARIN STAFF & LEGAL ASSESSMENT Draft Policy ARIN-2015-11 REMOVE TRANSFER LANGUAGE WHICH ONLY APPLIED PRE-EXHAUSTION OF IPV4 POOL Date of Assessment: 22 October 2015 ___ 1. Summary (Staff Understanding) This proposal calls for the removal of language in 8.3 and 8.4 of NRPM that sets a condition on the amount of time that must pass before the source of an 8.3 or 8.4 transfer may request additional IPv4 address space as a recipient. ___ 2. Comments A. ARIN Staff Comments * Since ARIN staff considers the depletion of the IPv4 address space as a single, one-time, event that has already occurred on September 24, 2015, the subject language no longer applies to new IPv4 recipient requests going forward. As of September 24, 2015, ARIN staff no longer applies a 12-month lock-out to organizations requesting to receive IPv4 who have previously been the source of an IPv4 allocation/assignment through an 8.3 or 8.4 transfer. * ARIN staff considers the removal of policy language to have no effect on processing of requests; it appears to be purely removal of inoperative policy text. * ARIN staff notes that both 8.3 and 8.4 have language that prevents organizations from being a source in an approved 8.3 or 8.4 transfer if they have been a recipient of IPv4 address space in the 12 months prior, and this language is presently operative and would remain so even if the proposal change is made. * This policy could be implemented as written. B. ARIN General Counsel ? Legal Assessment No material legal issues. ___ 3. Resource Impact This policy would have minimal resource impact from an implementation aspect. It is estimated that implementation would occur within 3 months after ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees. The following would be needed in order to implement: * Updated guidelines and internal procedures * Staff training ___ 4. Proposal / Draft Policy Text Assessed Draft Policy ARIN-2015-11 Problem statement: The current policies in NRPM sections 8.3, and 8.4 include language which is in effect "until exhaustion." As ARIN is no longer able to fulfil IPv4 requests (per 01 July 2015 press release https://www.arin.net/about_us/media/releases/20150701.html), exhaustion has effectively occurred. This proposal serves to remove the outdated language from the NRPM. Policy statement: Remove sections of the NRPM which were only affective until IPv4 pool exhaustion occurred, as follows: Section 8.3 Transfers between Specified Recipients within the ARIN Region: - Remove entirely the second bullet which reads "The source entity will be ineligible to receive any further IPv4 address allocations or assignments from ARIN for a period of 12 months after a transfer approval, or until the exhaustion of ARIN's IPv4 space, whichever occurs first." Section 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients: - Remove entirely the third bullet which reads "Source entities within the ARIN region will not be eligible to receive any further IPv4 address allocations or assignments from ARIN for a period of 12 months after a transfer approval, or until the exhaustion of ARIN's IPv4 space, whichever occurs first." END From David.Huberman at microsoft.com Tue Dec 22 14:45:23 2015 From: David.Huberman at microsoft.com (David Huberman) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 19:45:23 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2015 In-Reply-To: <5679A3B6.8020202@arin.net> References: <5679A3B6.8020202@arin.net> Message-ID: <1201B0375D8898EC.7462094A-98BD-4F8E-B9E5-0F8B5445F115@mail.outlook.com> Following the excellent example that Scott Leibrand has done over the years, I wish to convey my objections over the abandonment of 2015-8, which would allow End-users to SWIP. Year after year, and issue after issue, John Curran tells us "this is the way we are doing it; if you want us to change, go propose a policy". That's exactly what happened with 2015-8. The issue is complex because of the billing issues (most of the justification for the original ISP fee schedule was because of SWIP) and the existence of the dichotomy between ISPs and EUs. But the proposal is sound, in my opinion. It introduces a policy requirement to force ARIN to change how it runs its software. There's no wiggle room when a policy like this is passed. The community speaks, the staff carries it out. I acknowledge that there was not tremendous support at the first public meeting for 2015-8, but I think that is insufficient cause to abandon it. We should discuss it further. It should not be abdicated to the services WG which is not an elected body. David Sent from Outlook Mobile On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 11:26 AM -0800, "ARIN" > wrote: In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 17 December 2015. Having found the following Draft Policy to be fully developed and meeting ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy, the AC recommended it for adoption (to be posted separately for discussion as a Recommended Draft Policy): Draft Policy ARIN-2015-11: Remove transfer language which only applied pre-exhaustion of IPv4 pool The AC abandoned the following: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-8: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users The AC provided the following statement, "The ARIN AC has voted to abandon draft proposal ARIN-2015-8. Although a number of participants at ARIN 36 and on the PPML indicated support for investigation of greater harmonization of the services provided by ARIN to ISPs and End-Users, this specific proposal had no substantial community support. In fact, those who addressed themselves to the specific proposal, rather than broader issue of fees charged to ISPs vs. End-users or the types of services that ARIN should provide to each class of clients, did not support the specific proposal itself. Based on community feedback, we would suggest the broader issues be considered by ARIN, as part of a review of services." The AC is continuing to work on: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients) Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in end-user IPv4 policy Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks The AC abandoned 2015-8. Anyone dissatisfied with this decision may initiate a petition. The deadline to begin a petition will be five business days after the AC's draft meeting minutes are published. For more information on starting and participating in petitions, see PDP Petitions at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_petitions.html Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rjletts at uw.edu Tue Dec 22 15:31:04 2015 From: rjletts at uw.edu (Richard J. Letts) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 20:31:04 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2015 In-Reply-To: <1201B0375D8898EC.7462094A-98BD-4F8E-B9E5-0F8B5445F115@mail.outlook.com> References: <5679A3B6.8020202@arin.net> <1201B0375D8898EC.7462094A-98BD-4F8E-B9E5-0F8B5445F115@mail.outlook.com> Message-ID: As an alternative to ARIN taking on the burden of allowing/managing SWIP for end-user registrants how about allowing end-user registrants to register/run a rwhois server? That way if a large organization (like, say Apple or Microsoft) wants to publish data for their networks they can take on all the server costs and managing the data without imposing significant additional costs on ARIN? Would that meet the need? Richard Letts From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Huberman Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 11:45 AM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2015 Following the excellent example that Scott Leibrand has done over the years, I wish to convey my objections over the abandonment of 2015-8, which would allow End-users to SWIP. Year after year, and issue after issue, John Curran tells us "this is the way we are doing it; if you want us to change, go propose a policy". That's exactly what happened with 2015-8. The issue is complex because of the billing issues (most of the justification for the original ISP fee schedule was because of SWIP) and the existence of the dichotomy between ISPs and EUs. But the proposal is sound, in my opinion. It introduces a policy requirement to force ARIN to change how it runs its software. There's no wiggle room when a policy like this is passed. The community speaks, the staff carries it out. I acknowledge that there was not tremendous support at the first public meeting for 2015-8, but I think that is insufficient cause to abandon it. We should discuss it further. It should not be abdicated to the services WG which is not an elected body. David Sent from Outlook Mobile On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 11:26 AM -0800, "ARIN" > wrote: In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 17 December 2015. Having found the following Draft Policy to be fully developed and meeting ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy, the AC recommended it for adoption (to be posted separately for discussion as a Recommended Draft Policy): Draft Policy ARIN-2015-11: Remove transfer language which only applied pre-exhaustion of IPv4 pool The AC abandoned the following: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-8: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users The AC provided the following statement, "The ARIN AC has voted to abandon draft proposal ARIN-2015-8. Although a number of participants at ARIN 36 and on the PPML indicated support for investigation of greater harmonization of the services provided by ARIN to ISPs and End-Users, this specific proposal had no substantial community support. In fact, those who addressed themselves to the specific proposal, rather than broader issue of fees charged to ISPs vs. End-users or the types of services that ARIN should provide to each class of clients, did not support the specific proposal itself. Based on community feedback, we would suggest the broader issues be considered by ARIN, as part of a review of services." The AC is continuing to work on: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients) Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in end-user IPv4 policy Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks The AC abandoned 2015-8. Anyone dissatisfied with this decision may initiate a petition. The deadline to begin a petition will be five business days after the AC's draft meeting minutes are published. For more information on starting and participating in petitions, see PDP Petitions at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_petitions.html Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scottleibrand at gmail.com Tue Dec 22 15:39:32 2015 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 20:39:32 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2015 In-Reply-To: References: <5679A3B6.8020202@arin.net> <1201B0375D8898EC.7462094A-98BD-4F8E-B9E5-0F8B5445F115@mail.outlook.com> Message-ID: That (end user rwhois) is exactly what current ARIN practice allows, and one of the reasons I was OK with abandoning the SWIP proposal (the other main reason being the lack of support).? In this day and age setting up an rwhois server should be trivial (cheap and easy). If it's not, that probably means someone needs to work on a better open source rwhois server implementation.? -Scott On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 12:32 PM -0800, "Richard J. Letts" wrote: As an alternative to ARIN taking on the burden of allowing/managing SWIP for end-user registrants how about allowing end-user registrants to register/run a rwhois server? ? That way if a large organization (like, say Apple or Microsoft) wants to publish data for their networks they can take on all the server costs and managing the data without imposing significant additional costs on ARIN? ? Would that meet the need? ? Richard Letts ? From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Huberman Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 11:45 AM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2015 ? Following the excellent example that Scott Leibrand has done over the years, I wish to convey my objections over the abandonment of 2015-8, which would allow End-users to SWIP. ? Year after year, and issue after issue, John Curran tells us "this is the way we are doing it; if you want us to change, go propose a policy". ? That's exactly what happened with 2015-8. ? ? The issue is complex because of the billing issues (most of the justification for the original ISP fee schedule was because of SWIP) and the existence of the dichotomy between ISPs and EUs. ? But the proposal is sound, in my opinion. ?It introduces a policy requirement to force ARIN to change how it runs its software. ?There's no wiggle room when a policy like this is passed. ?The community speaks, the staff carries it out. ? I acknowledge that there was not tremendous support at the first public meeting for 2015-8, but I think that is insufficient cause to abandon it. ?We should discuss it further. ? It should not be abdicated to the services WG which is not an elected body. ? David ? Sent from Outlook Mobile ? On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 11:26 AM -0800, "ARIN" wrote: In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 17 December 2015. Having found the following Draft Policy to be fully developed and meeting ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy, the AC recommended it for adoption (to be posted separately for discussion as a Recommended Draft Policy): ?? Draft Policy ARIN-2015-11: Remove transfer language which only applied pre-exhaustion of IPv4 pool The AC abandoned the following: ?? Draft Policy ARIN-2015-8: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users The AC provided the following statement, "The ARIN AC has voted to abandon draft proposal ARIN-2015-8. Although a number of participants at ARIN 36 and on the PPML indicated support for investigation of greater harmonization of the services provided by ARIN to ISPs and End-Users, this specific proposal had no substantial community support. In fact, those who addressed themselves to the specific proposal, rather than broader issue of fees charged to ISPs vs. End-users or the types of services that ARIN should provide to each class of clients, did not support the specific proposal itself. Based on community feedback, we would suggest the broader issues be considered by ARIN, as part of a review of services." The AC is continuing to work on: ?? Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients) ?? Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in end-user IPv4 policy ?? Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use ?? Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks ?? Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers ?? Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks The AC abandoned 2015-8. Anyone dissatisfied with this decision may initiate a petition. The deadline to begin a petition will be five business days after the AC's draft meeting minutes are published. For more information on starting and participating in petitions, see PDP Petitions at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_petitions.html Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rudi.daniel at gmail.com Tue Dec 22 16:30:41 2015 From: rudi.daniel at gmail.com (Rudolph Daniel) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 17:30:41 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Seasons Greetings & a successful New Year. Message-ID: To all on list. :) RD On Dec 22, 2015 3:46 PM, 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. Weekly posting summary for ppml at arin.net (Thomas Narten) > 2. Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2015 (ARIN) > 3. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-11: Remove transfer > language which only applied pre-exhaustion of IPv4 pool (ARIN) > 4. Re: Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2015 > (David Huberman) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 00:53:02 -0500 > From: Thomas Narten > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml at arin.net > Message-ID: <201512180553.tBI5r3Qv006472 at rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Total of 4 messages in the last 7 days. > > script run at: Fri Dec 18 00:53:02 EST 2015 > > Messages | Bytes | Who > --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ > 25.00% | 1 | 40.51% | 29463 | owen at delong.com > 25.00% | 1 | 30.04% | 21850 | ron.baione at yahoo.com > 25.00% | 1 | 19.79% | 14392 | springer at inlandnet.com > 25.00% | 1 | 9.67% | 7033 | narten at us.ibm.com > --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ > 100.00% | 4 |100.00% | 72738 | Total > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 14:25:42 -0500 > From: ARIN > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2015 > Message-ID: <5679A3B6.8020202 at arin.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN > Advisory Council (AC) met on 17 December 2015. > > Having found the following Draft Policy to be fully developed and > meeting ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy, the AC > recommended it for adoption (to be posted separately for discussion as a > Recommended Draft Policy): > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-11: Remove transfer language which only > applied pre-exhaustion of IPv4 pool > > The AC abandoned the following: > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-8: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users > > The AC provided the following statement, "The ARIN AC has voted to > abandon draft proposal ARIN-2015-8. Although a number of participants at > ARIN 36 and on the PPML indicated support for investigation of greater > harmonization of the services provided by ARIN to ISPs and End-Users, > this specific proposal had no substantial community > support. In fact, those who addressed themselves to the specific > proposal, rather than broader issue of fees charged to ISPs vs. > End-users or the types of services that ARIN should provide to each > class of clients, did not support the specific proposal itself. Based on > community feedback, we would suggest the broader issues be considered by > ARIN, as part of a review of services." > > The AC is continuing to work on: > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to > Specified Recipients) > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in > end-user IPv4 policy > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated > need for IPv4 transfers > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for > Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks > > The AC abandoned 2015-8. Anyone dissatisfied with this decision may > initiate a petition. The deadline to begin a petition will be five > business days after the AC's draft meeting minutes are published. For > more information on starting and participating in petitions, see PDP > Petitions at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_petitions.html > > Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 14:26:08 -0500 > From: ARIN > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-11: Remove > transfer language which only applied pre-exhaustion of IPv4 pool > Message-ID: <5679A3D0.1060009 at arin.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-11 > Remove transfer language which only applied pre-exhaustion of IPv4 pool > > On 17 December 2015 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) recommended > ARIN-2015-11 for adoption, making it a Recommended Draft Policy. > > ARIN-2015-11 is below and can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_11.html > > You are encouraged to discuss Draft Policy 2015-11 on the PPML prior to > its presentation at the next ARIN Public Policy Consultation. 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-2015-11 > Remove transfer language which only applied pre-exhaustion of IPv4 pool > > AC's assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number > Resource Policy: > > ARIN 2015-11 contributes to fair and impartial number resource > administration by removing from the NRPM text that has become > inoperative since the depletion of the IPv4 free pool in September 2015, > thereby avoiding confusion among people applying for 8.3 or 8.4 > transfers. This proposal is technically sound, in that the removal of > the text in question does not create any contradictions or loopholes in > the application of policies that still matter. The proposal was > supported by some community members on PPML and at the ARIN meeting in > Montreal, and did not generate any opposition. > > Date: 23 September 2015 > > Problem Statement: > > The current policies in NRPM sections 8.3, and 8.4 include language > which is in effect "until exhaustion." As ARIN is no longer able to > fulfil IPv4 requests (per 01 July 2015 press release > https://www.arin.net/about_us/media/releases/20150701.html), exhaustion > has effectively occurred. This proposal serves to remove the outdated > language from the NRPM. > > Policy statement: > > Remove sections of the NRPM which were only affective until IPv4 pool > exhaustion occurred, as follows: > > Section 8.3 Transfers between Specified Recipients within the ARIN Region: > - Remove entirely the second bullet which reads "The source entity will > be ineligible to receive any further IPv4 address allocations or > assignments from ARIN for a period of 12 months after a transfer > approval, or until the exhaustion of ARIN's IPv4 space, whichever occurs > first." > > Section 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients: > - Remove entirely the third bullet which reads "Source entities within > the ARIN region will not be eligible to receive any further IPv4 address > allocations or assignments from ARIN for a period of 12 months after a > transfer approval, or until the exhaustion of ARIN's IPv4 space, > whichever occurs first." > > Comments: > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > > ##### > > ARIN STAFF & LEGAL ASSESSMENT > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-11 > REMOVE TRANSFER LANGUAGE WHICH ONLY APPLIED PRE-EXHAUSTION OF IPV4 POOL > > > Date of Assessment: 22 October 2015 > > ___ > 1. Summary (Staff Understanding) > > This proposal calls for the removal of language in 8.3 and 8.4 of NRPM > that sets a condition on the amount of time that must pass before the > source of an 8.3 or 8.4 transfer may request additional IPv4 address > space as a recipient. > > ___ > 2. Comments > > A. ARIN Staff Comments > > * Since ARIN staff considers the depletion of the IPv4 address space as > a single, one-time, event that has already occurred on September 24, > 2015, the subject language no longer applies to new IPv4 recipient > requests going forward. As of September 24, 2015, ARIN staff no longer > applies a 12-month lock-out to organizations requesting to receive IPv4 > who have previously been the source of an IPv4 allocation/assignment > through an 8.3 or 8.4 transfer. > > * ARIN staff considers the removal of policy language to have no effect > on processing of requests; it appears to be purely removal of > inoperative policy text. > > * ARIN staff notes that both 8.3 and 8.4 have language that prevents > organizations from being a source in an approved 8.3 or 8.4 transfer if > they have been a recipient of IPv4 address space in the 12 months prior, > and this language is presently operative and would remain so even if the > proposal change is made. > > * This policy could be implemented as written. > > B. ARIN General Counsel ? Legal Assessment > > No material legal issues. > > ___ > 3. Resource Impact > This policy would have minimal resource impact from an implementation > aspect. It is estimated that implementation would occur within 3 months > after ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees. The following would be > needed in order to implement: > > * Updated guidelines and internal procedures > * Staff training > > ___ > 4. Proposal / Draft Policy Text Assessed > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-11 > > Problem statement: > > The current policies in NRPM sections 8.3, and 8.4 include language > which is in effect "until exhaustion." As ARIN is no longer able to > fulfil IPv4 requests (per 01 July 2015 press release > https://www.arin.net/about_us/media/releases/20150701.html), exhaustion > has effectively occurred. This proposal serves to remove the outdated > language from the NRPM. > > Policy statement: > > Remove sections of the NRPM which were only affective until IPv4 pool > exhaustion occurred, as follows: > > Section 8.3 Transfers between Specified Recipients within the ARIN Region: > - Remove entirely the second bullet which reads "The source entity will > be ineligible to receive any further IPv4 address allocations or > assignments from ARIN for a period of 12 months after a transfer > approval, or until the exhaustion of ARIN's IPv4 space, whichever occurs > first." > > Section 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients: > - Remove entirely the third bullet which reads "Source entities within > the ARIN region will not be eligible to receive any further IPv4 address > allocations or assignments from ARIN for a period of 12 months after a > transfer approval, or until the exhaustion of ARIN's IPv4 space, > whichever occurs first." > > END > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 19:45:23 +0000 > From: David Huberman > To: "arin-ppml at arin.net" > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - December > 2015 > Message-ID: > < > 1201B0375D8898EC.7462094A-98BD-4F8E-B9E5-0F8B5445F115 at mail.outlook.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Following the excellent example that Scott Leibrand has done over the > years, I wish to convey my objections over the abandonment of 2015-8, which > would allow End-users to SWIP. > > Year after year, and issue after issue, John Curran tells us "this is the > way we are doing it; if you want us to change, go propose a policy". > > That's exactly what happened with 2015-8. > > The issue is complex because of the billing issues (most of the > justification for the original ISP fee schedule was because of SWIP) and > the existence of the dichotomy between ISPs and EUs. > > But the proposal is sound, in my opinion. It introduces a policy > requirement to force ARIN to change how it runs its software. There's no > wiggle room when a policy like this is passed. The community speaks, the > staff carries it out. > > I acknowledge that there was not tremendous support at the first public > meeting for 2015-8, but I think that is insufficient cause to abandon it. > We should discuss it further. > > It should not be abdicated to the services WG which is not an elected body. > > David > > Sent from Outlook Mobile > > > > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 11:26 AM -0800, "ARIN" info at arin.net>> wrote: > > In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN > Advisory Council (AC) met on 17 December 2015. > > Having found the following Draft Policy to be fully developed and > meeting ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy, the AC > recommended it for adoption (to be posted separately for discussion as a > Recommended Draft Policy): > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-11: Remove transfer language which only > applied pre-exhaustion of IPv4 pool > > The AC abandoned the following: > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-8: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users > > The AC provided the following statement, "The ARIN AC has voted to > abandon draft proposal ARIN-2015-8. Although a number of participants at > ARIN 36 and on the PPML indicated support for investigation of greater > harmonization of the services provided by ARIN to ISPs and End-Users, > this specific proposal had no substantial community > support. In fact, those who addressed themselves to the specific > proposal, rather than broader issue of fees charged to ISPs vs. > End-users or the types of services that ARIN should provide to each > class of clients, did not support the specific proposal itself. Based on > community feedback, we would suggest the broader issues be considered by > ARIN, as part of a review of services." > > The AC is continuing to work on: > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to > Specified Recipients) > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in > end-user IPv4 policy > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated > need for IPv4 transfers > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for > Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks > > The AC abandoned 2015-8. Anyone dissatisfied with this decision may > initiate a petition. The deadline to begin a petition will be five > business days after the AC's draft meeting minutes are published. For > more information on starting and participating in petitions, see PDP > Petitions at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_petitions.html > > Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20151222/0ad5322d/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 126, Issue 10 > ****************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Tue Dec 22 17:27:26 2015 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 14:27:26 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2015 In-Reply-To: References: <5679A3B6.8020202@arin.net> <1201B0375D8898EC.7462094A-98BD-4F8E-B9E5-0F8B5445F115@mail.outlook.com> Message-ID: > On Dec 22, 2015, at 12:31 , Richard J. Letts wrote: > > As an alternative to ARIN taking on the burden of allowing/managing SWIP for end-user registrants how about allowing end-user registrants to register/run a rwhois server? As was noted in the discussion of 2015-8, that is already allowed and fully supported. > > That way if a large organization (like, say Apple or Microsoft) wants to publish data for their networks they can take on all the server costs and managing the data without imposing significant additional costs on ARIN? > > Would that meet the need? IMHO, yes. Had that not been the case, I probably would have suggested modifying this proposal to have that effect rather than abandoning it. However, since what you are asking for was already present and that seems to address most of the needs expressed by the community, given the complete lack of support for this proposal, I felt abandonment was the correct course. Owen > > Richard Letts > > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Huberman > Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 11:45 AM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2015 > > Following the excellent example that Scott Leibrand has done over the years, I wish to convey my objections over the abandonment of 2015-8, which would allow End-users to SWIP. > > Year after year, and issue after issue, John Curran tells us "this is the way we are doing it; if you want us to change, go propose a policy". > > That's exactly what happened with 2015-8. > > The issue is complex because of the billing issues (most of the justification for the original ISP fee schedule was because of SWIP) and the existence of the dichotomy between ISPs and EUs. > > But the proposal is sound, in my opinion. It introduces a policy requirement to force ARIN to change how it runs its software. There's no wiggle room when a policy like this is passed. The community speaks, the staff carries it out. > > I acknowledge that there was not tremendous support at the first public meeting for 2015-8, but I think that is insufficient cause to abandon it. We should discuss it further. > > It should not be abdicated to the services WG which is not an elected body. > > David > > Sent from Outlook Mobile > > > > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 11:26 AM -0800, "ARIN" > wrote: > > In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN > Advisory Council (AC) met on 17 December 2015. > > Having found the following Draft Policy to be fully developed and > meeting ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy, the AC > recommended it for adoption (to be posted separately for discussion as a > Recommended Draft Policy): > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-11: Remove transfer language which only > applied pre-exhaustion of IPv4 pool > > The AC abandoned the following: > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-8: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users > > The AC provided the following statement, "The ARIN AC has voted to > abandon draft proposal ARIN-2015-8. Although a number of participants at > ARIN 36 and on the PPML indicated support for investigation of greater > harmonization of the services provided by ARIN to ISPs and End-Users, > this specific proposal had no substantial community > support. In fact, those who addressed themselves to the specific > proposal, rather than broader issue of fees charged to ISPs vs. > End-users or the types of services that ARIN should provide to each > class of clients, did not support the specific proposal itself. Based on > community feedback, we would suggest the broader issues be considered by > ARIN, as part of a review of services." > > The AC is continuing to work on: > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to > Specified Recipients) > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in > end-user IPv4 policy > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated > need for IPv4 transfers > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for > Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks > > The AC abandoned 2015-8. Anyone dissatisfied with this decision may > initiate a petition. The deadline to begin a petition will be five > business days after the AC's draft meeting minutes are published. For > more information on starting and participating in petitions, see PDP > Petitions at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_petitions.html > > Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net ). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Dec 25 00:53:02 2015 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2015 00:53:02 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201512250553.tBP5r2Ui032457@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 8 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Dec 25 00:53:02 EST 2015 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 12.50% | 1 | 25.98% | 44387 | rudi.daniel at gmail.com 25.00% | 2 | 10.57% | 18055 | info at arin.net 12.50% | 1 | 20.51% | 35054 | owen at delong.com 12.50% | 1 | 14.88% | 25428 | rjletts at uw.edu 12.50% | 1 | 13.46% | 22997 | scottleibrand at gmail.com 12.50% | 1 | 10.62% | 18146 | david.huberman at microsoft.com 12.50% | 1 | 3.98% | 6805 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 8 |100.00% | 170872 | Total From milton at gatech.edu Sat Dec 26 21:47:25 2015 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 02:47:25 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2015 In-Reply-To: <1201B0375D8898EC.7462094A-98BD-4F8E-B9E5-0F8B5445F115@mail.outlook.com> References: <5679A3B6.8020202@arin.net> <1201B0375D8898EC.7462094A-98BD-4F8E-B9E5-0F8B5445F115@mail.outlook.com> Message-ID: Like David, I voted against abandonment; it seemed to me the issues raised by the policy were not resolved and that continued discussion would be justified. Dr. Milton L. Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Huberman Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 2:45 PM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2015 Following the excellent example that Scott Leibrand has done over the years, I wish to convey my objections over the abandonment of 2015-8, which would allow End-users to SWIP. Year after year, and issue after issue, John Curran tells us "this is the way we are doing it; if you want us to change, go propose a policy". That's exactly what happened with 2015-8. The issue is complex because of the billing issues (most of the justification for the original ISP fee schedule was because of SWIP) and the existence of the dichotomy between ISPs and EUs. But the proposal is sound, in my opinion. It introduces a policy requirement to force ARIN to change how it runs its software. There's no wiggle room when a policy like this is passed. The community speaks, the staff carries it out. I acknowledge that there was not tremendous support at the first public meeting for 2015-8, but I think that is insufficient cause to abandon it. We should discuss it further. It should not be abdicated to the services WG which is not an elected body. David Sent from Outlook Mobile On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 11:26 AM -0800, "ARIN" > wrote: In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 17 December 2015. Having found the following Draft Policy to be fully developed and meeting ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy, the AC recommended it for adoption (to be posted separately for discussion as a Recommended Draft Policy): Draft Policy ARIN-2015-11: Remove transfer language which only applied pre-exhaustion of IPv4 pool The AC abandoned the following: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-8: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users The AC provided the following statement, "The ARIN AC has voted to abandon draft proposal ARIN-2015-8. Although a number of participants at ARIN 36 and on the PPML indicated support for investigation of greater harmonization of the services provided by ARIN to ISPs and End-Users, this specific proposal had no substantial community support. In fact, those who addressed themselves to the specific proposal, rather than broader issue of fees charged to ISPs vs. End-users or the types of services that ARIN should provide to each class of clients, did not support the specific proposal itself. Based on community feedback, we would suggest the broader issues be considered by ARIN, as part of a review of services." The AC is continuing to work on: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients) Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in end-user IPv4 policy Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks The AC abandoned 2015-8. Anyone dissatisfied with this decision may initiate a petition. The deadline to begin a petition will be five business days after the AC's draft meeting minutes are published. For more information on starting and participating in petitions, see PDP Petitions at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_petitions.html Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: