From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Jan 2 00:53:03 2015 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2015 00:53:03 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201501020553.t025r3HO013574@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 32 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 2 00:53:03 EST 2015 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 18.75% | 6 | 16.92% | 81447 | hannigan at gmail.com 12.50% | 4 | 10.43% | 50205 | jcurran at arin.net 6.25% | 2 | 15.83% | 76222 | keith at jcc.com 9.38% | 3 | 10.30% | 49600 | mpetach at netflight.com 6.25% | 2 | 13.13% | 63223 | andrew.dul at quark.net 9.38% | 3 | 6.84% | 32950 | mueller at syr.edu 9.38% | 3 | 4.05% | 19517 | bill at herrin.us 3.12% | 1 | 7.86% | 37829 | rudi.daniel at gmail.com 6.25% | 2 | 3.87% | 18635 | farmer at umn.edu 3.12% | 1 | 2.60% | 12525 | lsawyer at gci.com 3.12% | 1 | 2.24% | 10798 | springer at inlandnet.com 3.12% | 1 | 1.84% | 8864 | owen at delong.com 3.12% | 1 | 1.70% | 8189 | narten at us.ibm.com 3.12% | 1 | 1.28% | 6153 | rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com 3.12% | 1 | 1.09% | 5249 | ppml at rs.seastrom.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 32 |100.00% | 481406 | Total From ronald.dasilva at twcable.com Mon Jan 5 11:56:25 2015 From: ronald.dasilva at twcable.com (da Silva, Ronald) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 11:56:25 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ICANN Board Nomination Message-ID: <8995EB27-1F08-4121-BE39-B4E8E06FCEBF@twcable.com> Dear ARIN community, First, let me state my appreciation and gratitude to Ray Plzak who has served the last 6 years on the ICANN Board as a representative from the ARIN region, selected by the NRO/ASO. Ray has had a huge impact to the addressing community over his career and his passion and commitment to this industry is commendable and renowned. Thank you Ray! Now, I?ve accepted a nomination to the ICANN Board to fill the void left by Ray. And, as a current representative of our ARIN region serving on the ASO, I would ask for your support by way of comments via the NRO website. https://aso.icann.org/aso-icann/icann-board-elections/2015-elections/ The comment period ends at the end of March. So your participation and supporting commentary would be appreciated. Also note, there are a couple others from our region on the slate of candidates. I?m sure they would likewise appreciate your consideration and support. Thanks in advance and a Happy New Year to each of you! -ron ________________________________ This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From heather.skanks at gmail.com Thu Jan 8 17:40:27 2015 From: heather.skanks at gmail.com (Heather Schiller) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 17:40:27 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Requesting Feedback: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10 Message-ID: Happy New Year PPML! As one of the shepherds of this policy, it would be very helpful to hear from the community on this proposal. Comments for or against are welcome, as are any questions. You may want to read this report from RIPE Labs, specifically discussing the existing policy, and tests they did on routability of small prefixes. https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/propagation-of-longer-than-24-ipv4-prefixes Thanks! --Heather ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: ARIN Date: Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 3:35 PM Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10 To: arin-ppml at arin.net On 20 November 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-214 Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10" as a Draft Policy. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22 is below and can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_22.html You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft Policy 2014-22 on the Public Policy Mailing List. The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are: * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration * Technically Sound * Supported by the Community The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22 Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10 Date: 25 November 2014 Problem Statement: The current section 4.10 Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 Deployment creates an issue where a small new organization that requires an IPv4 allocation or assignment would potentially receive a block that today would be unroutable and therefore unusable for it intended purposes. Policy statement: Change "This block will be subject to a minimum size allocation of /28 and a maximum size allocation of /24. ARIN should use sparse allocation when possible within that /10 block." To "This block will be subject to an allocation of /24. ARIN should use sparse allocation when possible within that /10 block." Timetable for implementation: Immediate _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage 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 farmer at umn.edu Thu Jan 8 20:33:25 2015 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 19:33:25 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 In-Reply-To: <5474E803.9020504@arin.net> References: <5474E803.9020504@arin.net> Message-ID: <54AF2FE5.7030803@umn.edu> Now that we are on the other side of the Holidays, I would like to prompt a little more discussion of this Draft Policy. On PPML, there have been 2 clear statements of support, no opposition, a proposal to modify the policy text, primarily consisting of editorial changes for the broader section 4.4, and significant side discussion not directly related to the policy itself. As shepherd, I anticipate this policy going to the PPC in San Antonio at NANOG next month in its current state as a Draft policy. Then subsequent to and based on feedback from San Antonio, maybe making some minor changes, advancing this policy to Recommended Draft policy prior to the PPM in San Francisco in April. Assuming no opposition develops against the proposal. On the current trajectory for this proposal implementation is likely sometime in June, its entirely possible that the ARIN Free Pool would have run out before implementation of this policy can take place. There are several options to deal with this issue; 1. Advance the policy to Recommended Draft prior to the PPC in San Antonio, moving likely implementation to sometime in April. 2. Request that the Board instruct ARIN Staff to reserve a /16 in anticipation of this policy, imminently. With this option a reservation could reasonably occur in February or March with policy implementation on its current trajectory, likely June. 3. Stay on the current trajectory, get IPv4 address space for the policy from returned or recovered space address space, and what little if any space is the the ARIN Free Pool at implementation, likely June. Its not likely there will be a single contiguous block, likely a hodgepodge of smaller blocks, and it may take a while to collect a /16 for the reservation. 4. Do nothing, let events overtake the policy if they do, maybe abandoning the policy for lack of IPv4 address space late in the process. There are likely other variations on these themes. Regarding option #1: It might be possible to advance this proposal as-is to Recommended Draft prior to the PPC in San Antonio, at the January AC meeting. However, in order to justify recommending this to the AC, I will need to see significantly more support for this policy on PPML prior to the next AC meeting in two weeks. Even then it is likely not possible to advance the proposal prior to the PPC in San Antonio at this point, its less than a month away. I will raise option #2 with the AC at our meeting in two weeks. However, for this options to even be considered, I'm quite sure that both the AC and the Board will want to see significant community support on PPML before they would moving forward with such an option. I am interested to hear the community's opinions on the issue of this policy and the timing of ARIN Free Pool run out. Do you support any of the above options? Some other option? So, if you support this policy, and particularly if you think this policy should go to the PPC at NANOG in San Antonio in February as Recommended Draft policy please speak up ASAP. Do you have comments on or support the alternate text proposed in the email at this link? http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2014-December/029565.html Finally, if anyone opposes this policy it is important to speak up, as at this point no one has expressed any opposition to the policy at all. Thanks and I look forward to your comments. On 11/25/14 14:35 , ARIN wrote: > On 20 November 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted > "ARIN-prop-213 Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4" as a Draft > Policy. > > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21 is below and can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_21.html > > You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft > Policy 2014-21 on the Public Policy Mailing List. > > The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance > of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource > Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are: > > * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration > * Technically Sound > * Supported by the Community > > The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21 > Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 > > Date: 25 November 2014 > > Problem Statement: > > At the time that this section of policy was written, IXP growth in North > America was stagnant. Efforts of late have increased significantly > within the IXP standards and other communities to improve critical > infrastructure in North America. This effort is paying dividends and we > project that a /16 will not be enough to continue to improve global > interconnect conditions and support needed IXP CI infrastructure. > > Policy statement: > > Change to text in section 4.4 Micro Allocations: > > Current text: > > ARIN will place an equivalent of a /16 of IPv4 address space in a > reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. If at > the end of the policy term there is unused address space remaining in > this pool, ARIN staff is authorized to utilize this space in a manner > consistent with community expectations. > > Proposed text to replace current text entirely: > > ARIN will place an equivalent of a /15 of IPv4 address space in a > reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate -- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================ From scottleibrand at gmail.com Thu Jan 8 20:50:57 2015 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 17:50:57 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 In-Reply-To: <54AF2FE5.7030803@umn.edu> References: <5474E803.9020504@arin.net> <54AF2FE5.7030803@umn.edu> Message-ID: How much is ARIN going to get from the next round of IANA returned space distribution? It's more than a /16, isn't it? -Scott On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 5:33 PM, David Farmer wrote: > Now that we are on the other side of the Holidays, I would like to prompt > a little more discussion of this Draft Policy. > > On PPML, there have been 2 clear statements of support, no opposition, a > proposal to modify the policy text, primarily consisting of editorial > changes for the broader section 4.4, and significant side discussion not > directly related to the policy itself. > > As shepherd, I anticipate this policy going to the PPC in San Antonio at > NANOG next month in its current state as a Draft policy. Then subsequent > to and based on feedback from San Antonio, maybe making some minor changes, > advancing this policy to Recommended Draft policy prior to the PPM in San > Francisco in April. Assuming no opposition develops against the proposal. > > On the current trajectory for this proposal implementation is likely > sometime in June, its entirely possible that the ARIN Free Pool would have > run out before implementation of this policy can take place. There are > several options to deal with this issue; > > 1. Advance the policy to Recommended Draft prior to the PPC in San > Antonio, moving likely implementation to sometime in April. > > 2. Request that the Board instruct ARIN Staff to reserve a /16 in > anticipation of this policy, imminently. With this option a > reservation could reasonably occur in February or March with > policy implementation on its current trajectory, likely June. > > 3. Stay on the current trajectory, get IPv4 address space for the > policy from returned or recovered space address space, and what > little if any space is the the ARIN Free Pool at implementation, > likely June. Its not likely there will be a single contiguous > block, likely a hodgepodge of smaller blocks, and it may take a > while to collect a /16 for the reservation. > > 4. Do nothing, let events overtake the policy if they do, maybe > abandoning the policy for lack of IPv4 address space late in the > process. > > There are likely other variations on these themes. > > Regarding option #1: It might be possible to advance this proposal as-is > to Recommended Draft prior to the PPC in San Antonio, at the January AC > meeting. However, in order to justify recommending this to the AC, I will > need to see significantly more support for this policy on PPML prior to the > next AC meeting in two weeks. Even then it is likely not possible to > advance the proposal prior to the PPC in San Antonio at this point, its > less than a month away. > > I will raise option #2 with the AC at our meeting in two weeks. However, > for this options to even be considered, I'm quite sure that both the AC and > the Board will want to see significant community support on PPML before > they would moving forward with such an option. > > I am interested to hear the community's opinions on the issue of this > policy and the timing of ARIN Free Pool run out. Do you support any of the > above options? Some other option? > > So, if you support this policy, and particularly if you think this policy > should go to the PPC at NANOG in San Antonio in February as Recommended > Draft policy please speak up ASAP. > > Do you have comments on or support the alternate text proposed in the > email at this link? > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2014-December/029565.html > > Finally, if anyone opposes this policy it is important to speak up, as at > this point no one has expressed any opposition to the policy at all. > > Thanks and I look forward to your comments. > > > On 11/25/14 14:35 , ARIN wrote: > >> On 20 November 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted >> "ARIN-prop-213 Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4" as a Draft >> Policy. >> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21 is below and can be found at: >> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_21.html >> >> You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft >> Policy 2014-21 on the Public Policy Mailing List. >> >> The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance >> of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource >> Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are: >> >> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration >> * Technically Sound >> * Supported by the Community >> >> The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at: >> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html >> >> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: >> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html >> >> Regards, >> >> Communications and Member Services >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >> >> >> ## * ## >> >> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21 >> Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 >> >> Date: 25 November 2014 >> >> Problem Statement: >> >> At the time that this section of policy was written, IXP growth in North >> America was stagnant. Efforts of late have increased significantly >> within the IXP standards and other communities to improve critical >> infrastructure in North America. This effort is paying dividends and we >> project that a /16 will not be enough to continue to improve global >> interconnect conditions and support needed IXP CI infrastructure. >> >> Policy statement: >> >> Change to text in section 4.4 Micro Allocations: >> >> Current text: >> >> ARIN will place an equivalent of a /16 of IPv4 address space in a >> reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. If at >> the end of the policy term there is unused address space remaining in >> this pool, ARIN staff is authorized to utilize this space in a manner >> consistent with community expectations. >> >> Proposed text to replace current text entirely: >> >> ARIN will place an equivalent of a /15 of IPv4 address space in a >> reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. >> >> Timetable for implementation: Immediate >> > > > -- > ================================================ > David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 > ================================================ > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 Thu Jan 8 21:56:56 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 02:56:56 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 In-Reply-To: References: <5474E803.9020504@arin.net> <54AF2FE5.7030803@umn.edu> Message-ID: <15B8BAFA-64E6-4535-9163-529162D1736F@corp.arin.net> On Jan 8, 2015, at 5:50 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > > How much is ARIN going to get from the next round of IANA returned space distribution? It's more than a /16, isn't it? Per the Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA, the allocation size technically is set based on the recovered pool size at the time of the next allocation (1 March 2015). If I recall correctly, the estimate is that each RIR will receive IPv4 space equivalent to a /12 block on that date. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From owen at delong.com Thu Jan 8 22:42:02 2015 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 19:42:02 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 In-Reply-To: <54AF2FE5.7030803@umn.edu> References: <5474E803.9020504@arin.net> <54AF2FE5.7030803@umn.edu> Message-ID: > On Jan 8, 2015, at 17:33 , David Farmer wrote: > > Now that we are on the other side of the Holidays, I would like to prompt a little more discussion of this Draft Policy. > > On PPML, there have been 2 clear statements of support, no opposition, a proposal to modify the policy text, primarily consisting of editorial changes for the broader section 4.4, and significant side discussion not directly related to the policy itself. > > As shepherd, I anticipate this policy going to the PPC in San Antonio at NANOG next month in its current state as a Draft policy. Then subsequent to and based on feedback from San Antonio, maybe making some minor changes, advancing this policy to Recommended Draft policy prior to the PPM in San Francisco in April. Assuming no opposition develops against the proposal. > > On the current trajectory for this proposal implementation is likely sometime in June, its entirely possible that the ARIN Free Pool would have run out before implementation of this policy can take place. There are several options to deal with this issue; > > 1. Advance the policy to Recommended Draft prior to the PPC in San > Antonio, moving likely implementation to sometime in April. I support this. > 2. Request that the Board instruct ARIN Staff to reserve a /16 in > anticipation of this policy, imminently. With this option a > reservation could reasonably occur in February or March with > policy implementation on its current trajectory, likely June. I?m not sure that there?s any authority to do that short of the board implementing an emergency policy. If they do that, why not simply request the board take this up as an emergency policy? Note: I support doing this if we can?t do number 1 or if it looks like there will not be a /16 available by April. > 3. Stay on the current trajectory, get IPv4 address space for the > policy from returned or recovered space address space, and what > little if any space is the the ARIN Free Pool at implementation, > likely June. Its not likely there will be a single contiguous > block, likely a hodgepodge of smaller blocks, and it may take a > while to collect a /16 for the reservation. I?d say this is a last resort if we can?t get our act together for 1 or 2. > > 4. Do nothing, let events overtake the policy if they do, maybe > abandoning the policy for lack of IPv4 address space late in the > process. IMHO, having it come to this would be a failure of the process. If the community wants the policy abandoned, then they should say so on the list. Generally, this policy has been pretty widely supported and the list counts above don?t tell the whole story. Yes, there have been cosmetic tweak requests, but nothing truly substantive and no real opposition whatsoever (very rare in my experience). > > There are likely other variations on these themes. > > Regarding option #1: It might be possible to advance this proposal as-is to Recommended Draft prior to the PPC in San Antonio, at the January AC meeting. However, in order to justify recommending this to the AC, I will need to see significantly more support for this policy on PPML prior to the next AC meeting in two weeks. Even then it is likely not possible to advance the proposal prior to the PPC in San Antonio at this point, its less than a month away. I will commit to making the motion to advance this if you do not. I don?t think the lack of support on the mailing list alone when compared to the past support expressed by the community in general is a good reason to hold this up. Further, since there has been literally no opposition, I would say this is a case where silence is consent and/or consensus really is an appropriate determination. > I will raise option #2 with the AC at our meeting in two weeks. However, for this options to even be considered, I'm quite sure that both the AC and the Board will want to see significant community support on PPML before they would moving forward with such an option. Yes, I think this is a contingency if we fail to do the job per option 1. > I am interested to hear the community's opinions on the issue of this policy and the timing of ARIN Free Pool run out. Do you support any of the above options? Some other option? See above. > So, if you support this policy, and particularly if you think this policy should go to the PPC at NANOG in San Antonio in February as Recommended Draft policy please speak up ASAP. Yes, please! > Do you have comments on or support the alternate text proposed in the email at this link? > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2014-December/029565.html I don?t care whether we advance the current text or Andrew?s proposal. I think Andrew?s proposal is a cosmetic improvement, but as Andrew states in his mail, operationally, it?s a no-op compared to the current proposal, so either one is fine with me. > Finally, if anyone opposes this policy it is important to speak up, as at this point no one has expressed any opposition to the policy at all. Indeed, since consensus can be defined as ?The absence of a sustained opposition?? Owen > > Thanks and I look forward to your comments. > > On 11/25/14 14:35 , ARIN wrote: >> On 20 November 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted >> "ARIN-prop-213 Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4" as a Draft >> Policy. >> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21 is below and can be found at: >> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_21.html >> >> You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft >> Policy 2014-21 on the Public Policy Mailing List. >> >> The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance >> of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource >> Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are: >> >> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration >> * Technically Sound >> * Supported by the Community >> >> The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at: >> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html >> >> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: >> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html >> >> Regards, >> >> Communications and Member Services >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >> >> >> ## * ## >> >> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21 >> Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 >> >> Date: 25 November 2014 >> >> Problem Statement: >> >> At the time that this section of policy was written, IXP growth in North >> America was stagnant. Efforts of late have increased significantly >> within the IXP standards and other communities to improve critical >> infrastructure in North America. This effort is paying dividends and we >> project that a /16 will not be enough to continue to improve global >> interconnect conditions and support needed IXP CI infrastructure. >> >> Policy statement: >> >> Change to text in section 4.4 Micro Allocations: >> >> Current text: >> >> ARIN will place an equivalent of a /16 of IPv4 address space in a >> reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. If at >> the end of the policy term there is unused address space remaining in >> this pool, ARIN staff is authorized to utilize this space in a manner >> consistent with community expectations. >> >> Proposed text to replace current text entirely: >> >> ARIN will place an equivalent of a /15 of IPv4 address space in a >> reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. >> >> Timetable for implementation: Immediate > > > -- > ================================================ > David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 > ================================================ > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net ). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 Thu Jan 8 22:50:05 2015 From: rudi.daniel at gmail.com (Rudolph Daniel) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 22:50:05 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2014-21 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am in support of the draft policy...however, if David is correct, and I notice that John differs on that...re runout timescale, then options 3&4 do not look acceptable. And the Dul modified text, does seem to add clarity ..certainly on my mind....But i have not seen any further comments on the modified draft. RD On Jan 8, 2015 10:57 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. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 (David Farmer) 2. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 (Scott Leibrand) 3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 (John Curran) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 19:33:25 -0600 From: David Farmer To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 Message-ID: <54AF2FE5.7030803 at umn.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Now that we are on the other side of the Holidays, I would like to prompt a little more discussion of this Draft Policy. On PPML, there have been 2 clear statements of support, no opposition, a proposal to modify the policy text, primarily consisting of editorial changes for the broader section 4.4, and significant side discussion not directly related to the policy itself. As shepherd, I anticipate this policy going to the PPC in San Antonio at NANOG next month in its current state as a Draft policy. Then subsequent to and based on feedback from San Antonio, maybe making some minor changes, advancing this policy to Recommended Draft policy prior to the PPM in San Francisco in April. Assuming no opposition develops against the proposal. On the current trajectory for this proposal implementation is likely sometime in June, its entirely possible that the ARIN Free Pool would have run out before implementation of this policy can take place. There are several options to deal with this issue; 1. Advance the policy to Recommended Draft prior to the PPC in San Antonio, moving likely implementation to sometime in April. 2. Request that the Board instruct ARIN Staff to reserve a /16 in anticipation of this policy, imminently. With this option a reservation could reasonably occur in February or March with policy implementation on its current trajectory, likely June. 3. Stay on the current trajectory, get IPv4 address space for the policy from returned or recovered space address space, and what little if any space is the the ARIN Free Pool at implementation, likely June. Its not likely there will be a single contiguous block, likely a hodgepodge of smaller blocks, and it may take a while to collect a /16 for the reservation. 4. Do nothing, let events overtake the policy if they do, maybe abandoning the policy for lack of IPv4 address space late in the process. There are likely other variations on these themes. Regarding option #1: It might be possible to advance this proposal as-is to Recommended Draft prior to the PPC in San Antonio, at the January AC meeting. However, in order to justify recommending this to the AC, I will need to see significantly more support for this policy on PPML prior to the next AC meeting in two weeks. Even then it is likely not possible to advance the proposal prior to the PPC in San Antonio at this point, its less than a month away. I will raise option #2 with the AC at our meeting in two weeks. However, for this options to even be considered, I'm quite sure that both the AC and the Board will want to see significant community support on PPML before they would moving forward with such an option. I am interested to hear the community's opinions on the issue of this policy and the timing of ARIN Free Pool run out. Do you support any of the above options? Some other option? So, if you support this policy, and particularly if you think this policy should go to the PPC at NANOG in San Antonio in February as Recommended Draft policy please speak up ASAP. Do you have comments on or support the alternate text proposed in the email at this link? http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2014-December/029565.html Finally, if anyone opposes this policy it is important to speak up, as at this point no one has expressed any opposition to the policy at all. Thanks and I look forward to your comments. On 11/25/14 14:35 , ARIN wrote: > On 20 November 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted > "ARIN-prop-213 Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4" as a Draft > Policy. > > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21 is below and can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_21.html > > You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft > Policy 2014-21 on the Public Policy Mailing List. > > The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance > of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource > Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are: > > * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration > * Technically Sound > * Supported by the Community > > The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21 > Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 > > Date: 25 November 2014 > > Problem Statement: > > At the time that this section of policy was written, IXP growth in North > America was stagnant. Efforts of late have increased significantly > within the IXP standards and other communities to improve critical > infrastructure in North America. This effort is paying dividends and we > project that a /16 will not be enough to continue to improve global > interconnect conditions and support needed IXP CI infrastructure. > > Policy statement: > > Change to text in section 4.4 Micro Allocations: > > Current text: > > ARIN will place an equivalent of a /16 of IPv4 address space in a > reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. If at > the end of the policy term there is unused address space remaining in > this pool, ARIN staff is authorized to utilize this space in a manner > consistent with community expectations. > > Proposed text to replace current text entirely: > > ARIN will place an equivalent of a /15 of IPv4 address space in a > reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate -- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================ ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 17:50:57 -0800 From: Scott Leibrand To: David Farmer Cc: ARIN-PPML List Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" How much is ARIN going to get from the next round of IANA returned space distribution? It's more than a /16, isn't it? -Scott On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 5:33 PM, David Farmer wrote: > Now that we are on the other side of the Holidays, I would like to prompt > a little more discussion of this Draft Policy. > > On PPML, there have been 2 clear statements of support, no opposition, a > proposal to modify the policy text, primarily consisting of editorial > changes for the broader section 4.4, and significant side discussion not > directly related to the policy itself. > > As shepherd, I anticipate this policy going to the PPC in San Antonio at > NANOG next month in its current state as a Draft policy. Then subsequent > to and based on feedback from San Antonio, maybe making some minor changes, > advancing this policy to Recommended Draft policy prior to the PPM in San > Francisco in April. Assuming no opposition develops against the proposal. > > On the current trajectory for this proposal implementation is likely > sometime in June, its entirely possible that the ARIN Free Pool would have > run out before implementation of this policy can take place. There are > several options to deal with this issue; > > 1. Advance the policy to Recommended Draft prior to the PPC in San > Antonio, moving likely implementation to sometime in April. > > 2. Request that the Board instruct ARIN Staff to reserve a /16 in > anticipation of this policy, imminently. With this option a > reservation could reasonably occur in February or March with > policy implementation on its current trajectory, likely June. > > 3. Stay on the current trajectory, get IPv4 address space for the > policy from returned or recovered space address space, and what > little if any space is the the ARIN Free Pool at implementation, > likely June. Its not likely there will be a single contiguous > block, likely a hodgepodge of smaller blocks, and it may take a > while to collect a /16 for the reservation. > > 4. Do nothing, let events overtake the policy if they do, maybe > abandoning the policy for lack of IPv4 address space late in the > process. > > There are likely other variations on these themes. > > Regarding option #1: It might be possible to advance this proposal as-is > to Recommended Draft prior to the PPC in San Antonio, at the January AC > meeting. However, in order to justify recommending this to the AC, I will > need to see significantly more support for this policy on PPML prior to the > next AC meeting in two weeks. Even then it is likely not possible to > advance the proposal prior to the PPC in San Antonio at this point, its > less than a month away. > > I will raise option #2 with the AC at our meeting in two weeks. However, > for this options to even be considered, I'm quite sure that both the AC and > the Board will want to see significant community support on PPML before > they would moving forward with such an option. > > I am interested to hear the community's opinions on the issue of this > policy and the timing of ARIN Free Pool run out. Do you support any of the > above options? Some other option? > > So, if you support this policy, and particularly if you think this policy > should go to the PPC at NANOG in San Antonio in February as Recommended > Draft policy please speak up ASAP. > > Do you have comments on or support the alternate text proposed in the > email at this link? > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2014-December/029565.html > > Finally, if anyone opposes this policy it is important to speak up, as at > this point no one has expressed any opposition to the policy at all. > > Thanks and I look forward to your comments. > > > On 11/25/14 14:35 , ARIN wrote: > >> On 20 November 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted >> "ARIN-prop-213 Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4" as a Draft >> Policy. >> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21 is below and can be found at: >> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_21.html >> >> You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft >> Policy 2014-21 on the Public Policy Mailing List. >> >> The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance >> of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource >> Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are: >> >> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration >> * Technically Sound >> * Supported by the Community >> >> The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at: >> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html >> >> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: >> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html >> >> Regards, >> >> Communications and Member Services >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >> >> >> ## * ## >> >> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21 >> Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 >> >> Date: 25 November 2014 >> >> Problem Statement: >> >> At the time that this section of policy was written, IXP growth in North >> America was stagnant. Efforts of late have increased significantly >> within the IXP standards and other communities to improve critical >> infrastructure in North America. This effort is paying dividends and we >> project that a /16 will not be enough to continue to improve global >> interconnect conditions and support needed IXP CI infrastructure. >> >> Policy statement: >> >> Change to text in section 4.4 Micro Allocations: >> >> Current text: >> >> ARIN will place an equivalent of a /16 of IPv4 address space in a >> reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. If at >> the end of the policy term there is unused address space remaining in >> this pool, ARIN staff is authorized to utilize this space in a manner >> consistent with community expectations. >> >> Proposed text to replace current text entirely: >> >> ARIN will place an equivalent of a /15 of IPv4 address space in a >> reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. >> >> Timetable for implementation: Immediate >> > > > -- > ================================================ > David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 > ================================================ > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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/20150108/3c1f5196/attachment-0001.html > ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 02:56:56 +0000 From: John Curran To: Scott Leibrand Cc: ARIN-PPML List Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 Message-ID: <15B8BAFA-64E6-4535-9163-529162D1736F at corp.arin.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Jan 8, 2015, at 5:50 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > > How much is ARIN going to get from the next round of IANA returned space distribution? It's more than a /16, isn't it? Per the Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA, the allocation size technically is set based on the recovered pool size at the time of the next allocation (1 March 2015). If I recall correctly, the estimate is that each RIR will receive IPv4 space equivalent to a /12 block on that date. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML mailing list ARIN-PPML at arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 115, Issue 2 ***************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jan 8 23:51:22 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 04:51:22 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 In-Reply-To: <692676F1-05AC-4A71-9272-A320CED76E66@gmail.com> References: <5474E803.9020504@arin.net> <54989FCA.2020403@umn.edu> <5499F375.7050409@umn.edu> <5499F8EE.4060901@umn.edu> <692676F1-05AC-4A71-9272-A320CED76E66@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Dec 25, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > I'll point this list at a public viewable URL to a proper thread there. Not sure why people need to actually subscribe, either way. I also can't force (and won't advocate) people to waste their time like that on either list. > > There are AC members there. They too can report their observations back to the Politburo. I'm sure you'll be well informed. Martin - Insights are welcome from any source, and particularly from those who have operational experience germane to the number resource policy under consideration. If the only goal is having these insights considered during discussion, then having yourself or an AC member bring those points they feel relevant to the PPML discussion should suffice. As I have noted earlier, to the extent that OIX participants wish their support to be included in the discussion summary counts, that will require them to actually participate in the discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List (as per the ARIN Policy Development Process.) Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Jan 9 00:53:02 2015 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 00:53:02 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201501090553.t095r2xY006268@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 9 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 9 00:53:02 EST 2015 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 11.11% | 1 | 34.39% | 64279 | owen at delong.com 11.11% | 1 | 24.43% | 45655 | rudi.daniel at gmail.com 22.22% | 2 | 6.76% | 12639 | jcurran at arin.net 11.11% | 1 | 11.69% | 21854 | scottleibrand at gmail.com 11.11% | 1 | 6.83% | 12756 | farmer at umn.edu 11.11% | 1 | 6.74% | 12601 | heather.skanks at gmail.com 11.11% | 1 | 5.31% | 9926 | ronald.dasilva at twcable.com 11.11% | 1 | 3.85% | 7190 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 9 |100.00% | 186900 | Total From leo.vegoda at icann.org Fri Jan 9 11:27:17 2015 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 16:27:17 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 In-Reply-To: References: <5474E803.9020504@arin.net> <54AF2FE5.7030803@umn.edu> Message-ID: <5daefc653f57495b80f3c616a621dee0@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Hi Scott, Scott Leibrand wrote: > How much is ARIN going to get from the next round of IANA returned space > distribution? It's more than a /16, isn't it? If the pool does not change, which could happen if additional space was returned to it, or if additional IETF assignments are made, each RIR should receive a /13. The software used to make the allocations is freely available from github.com/icann. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5475 bytes Desc: not available URL: From owen at delong.com Fri Jan 9 12:31:26 2015 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 09:31:26 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 In-Reply-To: <5daefc653f57495b80f3c616a621dee0@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <5474E803.9020504@arin.net> <54AF2FE5.7030803@umn.edu> <5daefc653f57495b80f3c616a621dee0@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <69244D15-3C72-492A-8367-1BB7E12CAD49@delong.com> In any case, there is at minimum a /13, right? There?s no possibility for the pool to shrink between now and then if I understand things correctly. Owen > On Jan 9, 2015, at 08:27 , Leo Vegoda wrote: > > Hi Scott, > > Scott Leibrand wrote: > >> How much is ARIN going to get from the next round of IANA returned space >> distribution? It's more than a /16, isn't it? > > If the pool does not change, which could happen if additional space was > returned to it, or if additional IETF assignments are made, each RIR should > receive a /13. The software used to make the allocations is freely available > from github.com/icann. > > Kind regards, > > Leo Vegoda > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jcurran at arin.net Fri Jan 9 12:53:50 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 17:53:50 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 In-Reply-To: <5daefc653f57495b80f3c616a621dee0@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <5474E803.9020504@arin.net> <54AF2FE5.7030803@umn.edu> <5daefc653f57495b80f3c616a621dee0@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: On Jan 9, 2015, at 8:27 AM, Leo Vegoda wrote: > >> How much is ARIN going to get from the next round of IANA returned space >> distribution? It's more than a /16, isn't it? > > If the pool does not change, which could happen if additional space was > returned to it, or if additional IETF assignments are made, each RIR should > receive a /13. The software used to make the allocations is freely available > from github.com/icann. Leo - Excellent - it's good to have that estimate for policy development rather than just my recollection! Thanks again! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Fri Jan 9 13:00:35 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 18:00:35 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 In-Reply-To: <69244D15-3C72-492A-8367-1BB7E12CAD49@delong.com> References: <5474E803.9020504@arin.net> <54AF2FE5.7030803@umn.edu> <5daefc653f57495b80f3c616a621dee0@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <69244D15-3C72-492A-8367-1BB7E12CAD49@delong.com> Message-ID: <24071A15-D60D-4229-952B-A03526C49DB6@corp.arin.net> On Jan 9, 2015, at 9:31 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > In any case, there is at minimum a /13, right? There?s no possibility for the pool to shrink > between now and then if I understand things correctly. It is possible for the IETF to make protocol assignments out of the unallocated unicast IPv4 address space. These are generally very small assignments and unlikely to affect any redistribution outcome (but it is a remote possibility.) FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From leo.vegoda at icann.org Fri Jan 9 13:09:42 2015 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 18:09:42 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 In-Reply-To: <69244D15-3C72-492A-8367-1BB7E12CAD49@delong.com> References: <5474E803.9020504@arin.net> <54AF2FE5.7030803@umn.edu> <5daefc653f57495b80f3c616a621dee0@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <69244D15-3C72-492A-8367-1BB7E12CAD49@delong.com> Message-ID: Hi Owen, Owen DeLong wrote: > In any case, there is at minimum a /13, right? There?s no possibility for the pool to shrink > between now and then if I understand things correctly. Other than the scheduled allocations to the RIRs, the only other withdrawals result from IETF actions. I am not aware of any assignments being contemplated in active I-Ds but they are generally quite small and unlikely to make a significant impact. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5475 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kbrumund at dyn.com Fri Jan 9 13:12:48 2015 From: kbrumund at dyn.com (Karl Brumund) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 13:12:48 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 In-Reply-To: References: <5474E803.9020504@arin.net> <54AF2FE5.7030803@umn.edu> Message-ID: > On Jan 8, 2015, at 10:42 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> >> On Jan 8, 2015, at 17:33 , David Farmer > wrote: >> >> Now that we are on the other side of the Holidays, I would like to prompt a little more discussion of this Draft Policy. >> >> On PPML, there have been 2 clear statements of support, no opposition, a proposal to modify the policy text, primarily consisting of editorial changes for the broader section 4.4, and significant side discussion not directly related to the policy itself. >> >> As shepherd, I anticipate this policy going to the PPC in San Antonio at NANOG next month in its current state as a Draft policy. Then subsequent to and based on feedback from San Antonio, maybe making some minor changes, advancing this policy to Recommended Draft policy prior to the PPM in San Francisco in April. Assuming no opposition develops against the proposal. >> >> On the current trajectory for this proposal implementation is likely sometime in June, its entirely possible that the ARIN Free Pool would have run out before implementation of this policy can take place. There are several options to deal with this issue; >> >> 1. Advance the policy to Recommended Draft prior to the PPC in San >> Antonio, moving likely implementation to sometime in April. > > I support this. I also support this. > >> 2. Request that the Board instruct ARIN Staff to reserve a /16 in >> anticipation of this policy, imminently. With this option a >> reservation could reasonably occur in February or March with >> policy implementation on its current trajectory, likely June. > > I?m not sure that there?s any authority to do that short of the board implementing an emergency policy. If they do that, why not simply request the board take this up as an emergency policy? Note: I support doing this if we can?t do number 1 or if it looks like there will not be a /16 available by April. I second Owen?s comments. I don?t see the NRPM allowing this (nor disallowing it). > >> 3. Stay on the current trajectory, get IPv4 address space for the >> policy from returned or recovered space address space, and what >> little if any space is the the ARIN Free Pool at implementation, >> likely June. Its not likely there will be a single contiguous >> block, likely a hodgepodge of smaller blocks, and it may take a >> while to collect a /16 for the reservation. > > I?d say this is a last resort if we can?t get our act together for 1 or 2. Seems unlikely as to why this can?t proceed as per above. > >> >> 4. Do nothing, let events overtake the policy if they do, maybe >> abandoning the policy for lack of IPv4 address space late in the >> process. > > IMHO, having it come to this would be a failure of the process. If the community wants the policy abandoned, then they should say so on the list. > > Generally, this policy has been pretty widely supported and the list counts above don?t tell the whole story. Yes, there have been cosmetic tweak requests, but nothing truly substantive and no real opposition whatsoever (very rare in my experience). Doing nothing is still an action, and I also do not see a direction from the community for this action. > >> >> There are likely other variations on these themes. >> >> Regarding option #1: It might be possible to advance this proposal as-is to Recommended Draft prior to the PPC in San Antonio, at the January AC meeting. However, in order to justify recommending this to the AC, I will need to see significantly more support for this policy on PPML prior to the next AC meeting in two weeks. Even then it is likely not possible to advance the proposal prior to the PPC in San Antonio at this point, its less than a month away. > > I will commit to making the motion to advance this if you do not. I don?t think the lack of support on the mailing list alone when compared to the past support expressed by the community in general is a good reason to hold this up. Further, since there has been literally no opposition, I would say this is a case where silence is consent and/or consensus really is an appropriate determination. When there is some outspoken support and no opposition, it looks like consensus as well. For any proposal there will always be a number in the community that do not show either support or opposition. You can only count the votes made. > >> I will raise option #2 with the AC at our meeting in two weeks. However, for this options to even be considered, I'm quite sure that both the AC and the Board will want to see significant community support on PPML before they would moving forward with such an option. > > Yes, I think this is a contingency if we fail to do the job per option 1. Still really wonder why #1 is so hard. > >> I am interested to hear the community's opinions on the issue of this policy and the timing of ARIN Free Pool run out. Do you support any of the above options? Some other option? > > See above. Support as written. > >> So, if you support this policy, and particularly if you think this policy should go to the PPC at NANOG in San Antonio in February as Recommended Draft policy please speak up ASAP. > > Yes, please! +1 > >> Do you have comments on or support the alternate text proposed in the email at this link? >> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2014-December/029565.html > > I don?t care whether we advance the current text or Andrew?s proposal. I think Andrew?s proposal is a cosmetic improvement, but as Andrew states in his mail, operationally, it?s a no-op compared to the current proposal, so either one is fine with me. I would rather just see the current text advance. I just don?t see the need for more changes. > >> Finally, if anyone opposes this policy it is important to speak up, as at this point no one has expressed any opposition to the policy at all. > > Indeed, since consensus can be defined as ?The absence of a sustained opposition?? +1 again ?karl > > Owen > >> >> Thanks and I look forward to your comments. >> >> On 11/25/14 14:35 , ARIN wrote: >>> On 20 November 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted >>> "ARIN-prop-213 Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4" as a Draft >>> Policy. >>> >>> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21 is below and can be found at: >>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_21.html >>> >>> You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft >>> Policy 2014-21 on the Public Policy Mailing List. >>> >>> The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance >>> of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource >>> Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are: >>> >>> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration >>> * Technically Sound >>> * Supported by the Community >>> >>> The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at: >>> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html >>> >>> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: >>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Communications and Member Services >>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >>> >>> >>> ## * ## >>> >>> >>> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21 >>> Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 >>> >>> Date: 25 November 2014 >>> >>> Problem Statement: >>> >>> At the time that this section of policy was written, IXP growth in North >>> America was stagnant. Efforts of late have increased significantly >>> within the IXP standards and other communities to improve critical >>> infrastructure in North America. This effort is paying dividends and we >>> project that a /16 will not be enough to continue to improve global >>> interconnect conditions and support needed IXP CI infrastructure. >>> >>> Policy statement: >>> >>> Change to text in section 4.4 Micro Allocations: >>> >>> Current text: >>> >>> ARIN will place an equivalent of a /16 of IPv4 address space in a >>> reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. If at >>> the end of the policy term there is unused address space remaining in >>> this pool, ARIN staff is authorized to utilize this space in a manner >>> consistent with community expectations. >>> >>> Proposed text to replace current text entirely: >>> >>> ARIN will place an equivalent of a /15 of IPv4 address space in a >>> reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. >>> >>> Timetable for implementation: Immediate >> >> >> -- >> ================================================ >> David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu >> Office of Information Technology >> University of Minnesota >> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 >> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 >> ================================================ >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net ). >> Unsubscribe or manage 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 rudi.daniel at gmail.com Fri Jan 9 13:31:15 2015 From: rudi.daniel at gmail.com (Rudolph Daniel) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 13:31:15 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2014-21 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thinking, .....since 2014-21 deals with critical infrastructure, and we are at the ipv4 runout stage that we are at, is it not expeditious for Arin to reserve the new requirement pursuant to the process of implementation in the light of little or no expected challenge to the proposal? RD On Jan 9, 2015 2:01 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. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 (John Curran) 2. Weekly posting summary for ppml at arin.net (Thomas Narten) 3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 (Leo Vegoda) 4. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 (Owen DeLong) 5. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 (John Curran) 6. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 (John Curran) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 04:51:22 +0000 From: John Curran To: Martin J Hannigan Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Dec 25, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > I'll point this list at a public viewable URL to a proper thread there. Not sure why people need to actually subscribe, either way. I also can't force (and won't advocate) people to waste their time like that on either list. > > There are AC members there. They too can report their observations back to the Politburo. I'm sure you'll be well informed. Martin - Insights are welcome from any source, and particularly from those who have operational experience germane to the number resource policy under consideration. If the only goal is having these insights considered during discussion, then having yourself or an AC member bring those points they feel relevant to the PPML discussion should suffice. As I have noted earlier, to the extent that OIX participants wish their support to be included in the discussion summary counts, that will require them to actually participate in the discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List (as per the ARIN Policy Development Process.) Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 09 Jan 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: <201501090553.t095r2xY006268 at rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Total of 9 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 9 00:53:02 EST 2015 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 11.11% | 1 | 34.39% | 64279 | owen at delong.com 11.11% | 1 | 24.43% | 45655 | rudi.daniel at gmail.com 22.22% | 2 | 6.76% | 12639 | jcurran at arin.net 11.11% | 1 | 11.69% | 21854 | scottleibrand at gmail.com 11.11% | 1 | 6.83% | 12756 | farmer at umn.edu 11.11% | 1 | 6.74% | 12601 | heather.skanks at gmail.com 11.11% | 1 | 5.31% | 9926 | ronald.dasilva at twcable.com 11.11% | 1 | 3.85% | 7190 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 9 |100.00% | 186900 | Total ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 16:27:17 +0000 From: Leo Vegoda To: Scott Leibrand , David Farmer Cc: ARIN-PPML List Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 Message-ID: <5daefc653f57495b80f3c616a621dee0 at PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Hi Scott, Scott Leibrand wrote: > How much is ARIN going to get from the next round of IANA returned space > distribution? It's more than a /16, isn't it? If the pool does not change, which could happen if additional space was returned to it, or if additional IETF assignments are made, each RIR should receive a /13. The software used to make the allocations is freely available from github.com/icann. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5475 bytes Desc: not available URL: < http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150109/8249d8a6/attachment-0001.bin > ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 09:31:26 -0800 From: Owen DeLong To: Leo Vegoda Cc: ARIN-PPML List Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 Message-ID: <69244D15-3C72-492A-8367-1BB7E12CAD49 at delong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 In any case, there is at minimum a /13, right? There?s no possibility for the pool to shrink between now and then if I understand things correctly. Owen > On Jan 9, 2015, at 08:27 , Leo Vegoda wrote: > > Hi Scott, > > Scott Leibrand wrote: > >> How much is ARIN going to get from the next round of IANA returned space >> distribution? It's more than a /16, isn't it? > > If the pool does not change, which could happen if additional space was > returned to it, or if additional IETF assignments are made, each RIR should > receive a /13. The software used to make the allocations is freely available > from github.com/icann. > > Kind regards, > > Leo Vegoda > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 17:53:50 +0000 From: John Curran To: Leo Vegoda , Scott Leibrand Cc: ARIN-PPML List Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Jan 9, 2015, at 8:27 AM, Leo Vegoda wrote: > >> How much is ARIN going to get from the next round of IANA returned space >> distribution? It's more than a /16, isn't it? > > If the pool does not change, which could happen if additional space was > returned to it, or if additional IETF assignments are made, each RIR should > receive a /13. The software used to make the allocations is freely available > from github.com/icann. Leo - Excellent - it's good to have that estimate for policy development rather than just my recollection! Thanks again! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 18:00:35 +0000 From: John Curran To: Owen DeLong Cc: ARIN-PPML List Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 Message-ID: <24071A15-D60D-4229-952B-A03526C49DB6 at corp.arin.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" On Jan 9, 2015, at 9:31 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > In any case, there is at minimum a /13, right? There?s no possibility for the pool to shrink > between now and then if I understand things correctly. It is possible for the IETF to make protocol assignments out of the unallocated unicast IPv4 address space. These are generally very small assignments and unlikely to affect any redistribution outcome (but it is a remote possibility.) FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML mailing list ARIN-PPML at arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 115, Issue 5 ***************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kbrumund at dyn.com Fri Jan 9 13:33:53 2015 From: kbrumund at dyn.com (Karl Brumund) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 13:33:53 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Requesting Feedback: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F6F2923-BD5B-46BB-BED5-F74E422232C1@dyn.com> > On Jan 8, 2015, at 5:40 PM, Heather Schiller wrote: > > Happy New Year PPML! > > As one of the shepherds of this policy, it would be very helpful to hear from the community on this proposal. Comments for or against are welcome, as are any questions. > Reading 2008-5, it appears that the authors at the time expected that ISPs may relax their filter rules to allow longer than /24 routes. Given that doing so would encourage a lot more deaggregation of existing /24s, I find it unlikely that ISPs will permit longer than /24 in any appreciable number to matter. Thus it seems that having a minimum of /28 for direct allocations is impractical, and that these would happen through assignments, as today. I see nothing wrong with 2014-22, but am open to hearing other comments. ?karl > You may want to read this report from RIPE Labs, specifically discussing the existing policy, and tests they did on routability of small prefixes. > > https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/propagation-of-longer-than-24-ipv4-prefixes > > Thanks! > --Heather > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: ARIN > > Date: Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 3:35 PM > Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10 > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > > > On 20 November 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-214 Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10" as a Draft Policy. > > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22 is below and can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_22.html > > You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft > Policy 2014-22 on the Public Policy Mailing List. > > The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance > of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource > Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are: > > * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration > * Technically Sound > * Supported by the Community > > The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22 > Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10 > > Date: 25 November 2014 > > Problem Statement: > > The current section 4.10 Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 Deployment creates an issue where a small new organization that requires an IPv4 allocation or assignment would potentially receive a block that today would be unroutable and therefore unusable for it intended purposes. > > Policy statement: > > Change > > "This block will be subject to a minimum size allocation of /28 and a maximum size allocation of /24. ARIN should use sparse allocation when possible within that /10 block." > > To > > "This block will be subject to an allocation of /24. ARIN should use sparse allocation when possible within that /10 block." > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net ). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 kbrumund at dyn.com Fri Jan 9 13:47:28 2015 From: kbrumund at dyn.com (Karl Brumund) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 13:47:28 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate In-Reply-To: <549AE80D.3080206@arin.net> References: <549AE80D.3080206@arin.net> Message-ID: <5F384AC4-DF92-4710-BA4A-7E3032F06B65@dyn.com> Makes sense to me. +1 ?karl > On Dec 24, 2014, at 11:21 AM, ARIN wrote: > > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17 > Change Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate > > On 18 December 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) recommended > ARIN-2014-17 for adoption, making it a Recommended Draft Policy. > > ARIN-2014-17 is below and can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_17.html > > You are encouraged to discuss Draft Policy 2014-17 on the PPML prior to > the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Consultation at NANOG 63 in San Antonio in February 2015. Both the discussion on the list and at the meeting will be used by the ARIN Advisory Council to determine the community consensus for adopting this as policy. > > The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17 > Change Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate > > Date: 19 October 2014 > > AC's assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy: > > This proposal enables fair and impartial number resource administration by removing an impediment to additional allocations seen by some organizations due to the shortening of the assignment window to three months and the gradual reduction of minimum block size over the past 5 years. This draft proposal applies equally to all organizations and now requires that any netblock show at least 50% utilization before an additional block can be allocated or assigned. The policy is clear and implementable as written. This proposal is technically sound. There are no technical issues which are raised by changing the utilization definition within the NRPM. This proposal is supported by the community. Support for this draft proposal has been growing as it has been discussed. Additional support from the community was seen as issues which were brought to the attention of the community by the first staff and legal assessment have been mitigated. > > Problem Statement: > > Current ARIN policy calculates utilization on a per allocation basis rather than in aggregate. This method of determining utilization may cause some organizations to be unable to qualify for additional address blocks despite attempting to use their resource allocations as best as possible. This issue has been exacerbated in the past couple of years due to the 3-month allocation window which causes organizations to receive smaller non-expandable allocations rather than a larger aggregate. > > For example, if an organization has 4 x /22 and 3 of them are utilized 100% and the fourth utilized at 75%, an additional allocation request would be denied. However, an organization with a single /20 utilized at 80% would have less efficient utilization but would be eligible to receive additional space. > > Policy statement: > > Replace Section 4.2.4.1 > > ISPs must have efficiently utilized all allocations, in aggregate, to at least 80% and at least 50% of every allocation in order to receive additional space. This includes all space reassigned to their customers. > > Replace Section 4.3.6.1 > > End-users must have efficiently utilized all assignments, in aggregate, to at least 80% and at least 50% of every assignment in order to receive additional space, and must provide ARIN with utilization details. > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > > ##### > > ARIN STAFF ASSESSMENT > > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17 > Change Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate > Date of Assessment: November 2014 > > 1. Summary (Staff Understanding) > > This policy removes the current requirement to have efficiently utilized all previous allocations and assignments, and 80% of the most recent one, and replaces it with the requirement to have efficiently utilized all allocations and assignments in aggregate, to at least 80% overall, with at least a 50% utilization of every allocated or assigned block. > > 2. Comments > > A. ARIN Staff Comments > > Based on staff experience, the 80% utilization rate of the last block has been periodically problematic for smaller ISPs, but not for medium to larger ISPs. Staff has seen situations where a small ISP with a /22 may need to issue a /24 to a customer but not have any available, not be at 80% utilized, and therefore, not be able to request additional space. > > This policy could be implemented as written. > > B. ARIN General Counsel - Legal Assessment > > The policy does not present material legal issues. Allocation rules to address concerns of small ISP's indicate ARIN's continued attempts to balance the needs of stewardship with the needs of different sectors. > > 3. Resource Impact > > This policy would have minimal resource impact from an implementation aspect. It is estimated that implementation would occur within 3 months after ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees. The following would be needed in order to implement: > ? Updated guidelines and internal procedures > ? Staff training > > 4. Proposal/Draft Policy Text Assessed > > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17 Change Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate > Date: 19 October 2014 > Problem Statement: > Current ARIN policy calculates utilization on a per allocation basis rather than in aggregate. This method of determining utilization may cause some organizations to be unable to qualify for additional address blocks despite attempting to use their resource allocations as best as possible. This issue has been exacerbated in the past couple of years due to the 3-month allocation window which causes organizations to receive smaller non-expandable allocations rather than a larger aggregate. > For example, if an organization has 4 x /22 and 3 of them are utilized 100% and the fourth utilized at 75%, an additional allocation request would be denied. However, an organization with a single /20 utilized at 80% would have less efficient utilization but would be eligible to receive additional space. > Policy statement: > Replace Section 4.2.4.1 > ISPs must have efficiently utilized all allocations, in aggregate, to at least 80% and at least 50% of every allocation in order to receive additional space. This includes all space reassigned to their customers. > Replace Section 4.3.6.1 > End-users must have efficiently utilized all assignments, in aggregate, to at least 80% and at least 50% of every assignment in order to receive additional space, and must provide ARIN with utilization details. > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From owen at delong.com Fri Jan 9 13:48:23 2015 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 10:48:23 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Requesting Feedback: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10 In-Reply-To: <3F6F2923-BD5B-46BB-BED5-F74E422232C1@dyn.com> References: <3F6F2923-BD5B-46BB-BED5-F74E422232C1@dyn.com> Message-ID: > On Jan 9, 2015, at 10:33 , Karl Brumund wrote: > >> On Jan 8, 2015, at 5:40 PM, Heather Schiller > wrote: >> >> Happy New Year PPML! >> >> As one of the shepherds of this policy, it would be very helpful to hear from the community on this proposal. Comments for or against are welcome, as are any questions. >> > > Reading 2008-5, it appears that the authors at the time expected that ISPs may relax their filter rules to allow longer than /24 routes. Given that doing so would encourage a lot more deaggregation of existing /24s, I find it unlikely that ISPs will permit longer than /24 in any appreciable number to matter. > Thus it seems that having a minimum of /28 for direct allocations is impractical, and that these would happen through assignments, as today. As one of the authors of 2008-5, yes, you are (mostly) correct. I didn?t expect ISPs to relax their filters in general, but I did expect ISPs might relax their filters for this particular designated block. I don?t see any reason that wouldn?t be possible even now as that would not encourage (or even allow) deaggregation of existing /24s. We are talking about a relatively small block being preserved to provide minimal resources for (primarily) post-runout new entrants (or at least that was my intent at the time of writing). > I see nothing wrong with 2014-22, but am open to hearing other comments. I see no advantage to 2014-22. I think when this block comes into play, since it is a particular designated block, ISPs will react relatively quickly to allow longer prefixes within this space when it becomes necessary. Since it is only a single /10, even at /28, we?re talking about a maximum of 16,384 additional prefixes. Owen > > ?karl > >> You may want to read this report from RIPE Labs, specifically discussing the existing policy, and tests they did on routability of small prefixes. >> >> https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/propagation-of-longer-than-24-ipv4-prefixes >> >> Thanks! >> --Heather >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: ARIN > >> Date: Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 3:35 PM >> Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10 >> To: arin-ppml at arin.net >> >> >> On 20 November 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-214 Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10" as a Draft Policy. >> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22 is below and can be found at: >> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_22.html >> >> You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft >> Policy 2014-22 on the Public Policy Mailing List. >> >> The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance >> of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource >> Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are: >> >> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration >> * Technically Sound >> * Supported by the Community >> >> The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at: >> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html >> >> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: >> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html >> >> Regards, >> >> Communications and Member Services >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >> >> >> ## * ## >> >> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22 >> Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10 >> >> Date: 25 November 2014 >> >> Problem Statement: >> >> The current section 4.10 Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 Deployment creates an issue where a small new organization that requires an IPv4 allocation or assignment would potentially receive a block that today would be unroutable and therefore unusable for it intended purposes. >> >> Policy statement: >> >> Change >> >> "This block will be subject to a minimum size allocation of /28 and a maximum size allocation of /24. ARIN should use sparse allocation when possible within that /10 block." >> >> To >> >> "This block will be subject to an allocation of /24. ARIN should use sparse allocation when possible within that /10 block." >> >> Timetable for implementation: Immediate >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net ). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net ). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net ). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kbrumund at dyn.com Fri Jan 9 13:59:19 2015 From: kbrumund at dyn.com (Karl Brumund) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 13:59:19 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Requesting Feedback: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10 In-Reply-To: References: <3F6F2923-BD5B-46BB-BED5-F74E422232C1@dyn.com> Message-ID: <5E9E18FF-E5EF-4238-A94B-FC8B84A0A238@dyn.com> > On Jan 9, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> >> On Jan 9, 2015, at 10:33 , Karl Brumund > wrote: >> >>> On Jan 8, 2015, at 5:40 PM, Heather Schiller > wrote: >>> >>> Happy New Year PPML! >>> >>> As one of the shepherds of this policy, it would be very helpful to hear from the community on this proposal. Comments for or against are welcome, as are any questions. >>> >> >> Reading 2008-5, it appears that the authors at the time expected that ISPs may relax their filter rules to allow longer than /24 routes. Given that doing so would encourage a lot more deaggregation of existing /24s, I find it unlikely that ISPs will permit longer than /24 in any appreciable number to matter. >> Thus it seems that having a minimum of /28 for direct allocations is impractical, and that these would happen through assignments, as today. > > As one of the authors of 2008-5, yes, you are (mostly) correct. > > I didn?t expect ISPs to relax their filters in general, but I did expect ISPs might relax their filters for this particular designated block. I don?t see any reason that wouldn?t be possible even now as that would not encourage (or even allow) deaggregation of existing /24s. > > We are talking about a relatively small block being preserved to provide minimal resources for (primarily) post-runout new entrants (or at least that was my intent at the time of writing). > >> I see nothing wrong with 2014-22, but am open to hearing other comments. > > I see no advantage to 2014-22. I think when this block comes into play, since it is a particular designated block, ISPs will react relatively quickly to allow longer prefixes within this space when it becomes necessary. Given the pain of even getting some of BCP38 implemented, I am having trouble sharing Owen?s optimism that this would happen. I would like to, I really sincerely honestly would, but then again I would also like to route in a world that implemented BCP38. ?karl > > Since it is only a single /10, even at /28, we?re talking about a maximum of 16,384 additional prefixes. > > Owen > >> >> ?karl >> >>> You may want to read this report from RIPE Labs, specifically discussing the existing policy, and tests they did on routability of small prefixes. >>> >>> https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/propagation-of-longer-than-24-ipv4-prefixes >>> >>> Thanks! >>> --Heather >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: ARIN > >>> Date: Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 3:35 PM >>> Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10 >>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net >>> >>> >>> On 20 November 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-214 Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10" as a Draft Policy. >>> >>> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22 is below and can be found at: >>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_22.html >>> >>> You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft >>> Policy 2014-22 on the Public Policy Mailing List. >>> >>> The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance >>> of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource >>> Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are: >>> >>> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration >>> * Technically Sound >>> * Supported by the Community >>> >>> The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at: >>> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html >>> >>> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: >>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Communications and Member Services >>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >>> >>> >>> ## * ## >>> >>> >>> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22 >>> Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10 >>> >>> Date: 25 November 2014 >>> >>> Problem Statement: >>> >>> The current section 4.10 Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 Deployment creates an issue where a small new organization that requires an IPv4 allocation or assignment would potentially receive a block that today would be unroutable and therefore unusable for it intended purposes. >>> >>> Policy statement: >>> >>> Change >>> >>> "This block will be subject to a minimum size allocation of /28 and a maximum size allocation of /24. ARIN should use sparse allocation when possible within that /10 block." >>> >>> To >>> >>> "This block will be subject to an allocation of /24. ARIN should use sparse allocation when possible within that /10 block." >>> >>> Timetable for implementation: Immediate >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PPML >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net ). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PPML >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net ). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net ). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From David.Huberman at microsoft.com Fri Jan 9 14:47:38 2015 From: David.Huberman at microsoft.com (David Huberman) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 19:47:38 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 In-Reply-To: <54AF2FE5.7030803@umn.edu> References: <5474E803.9020504@arin.net> <54AF2FE5.7030803@umn.edu> Message-ID: Registering my support for advancing the current text to recommended draft policy as soon as possible David R Huberman Microsoft Corporation Principal, Global IP Addressing -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Farmer Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 5:33 PM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 Now that we are on the other side of the Holidays, I would like to prompt a little more discussion of this Draft Policy. On PPML, there have been 2 clear statements of support, no opposition, a proposal to modify the policy text, primarily consisting of editorial changes for the broader section 4.4, and significant side discussion not directly related to the policy itself. As shepherd, I anticipate this policy going to the PPC in San Antonio at NANOG next month in its current state as a Draft policy. Then subsequent to and based on feedback from San Antonio, maybe making some minor changes, advancing this policy to Recommended Draft policy prior to the PPM in San Francisco in April. Assuming no opposition develops against the proposal. On the current trajectory for this proposal implementation is likely sometime in June, its entirely possible that the ARIN Free Pool would have run out before implementation of this policy can take place. There are several options to deal with this issue; 1. Advance the policy to Recommended Draft prior to the PPC in San Antonio, moving likely implementation to sometime in April. 2. Request that the Board instruct ARIN Staff to reserve a /16 in anticipation of this policy, imminently. With this option a reservation could reasonably occur in February or March with policy implementation on its current trajectory, likely June. 3. Stay on the current trajectory, get IPv4 address space for the policy from returned or recovered space address space, and what little if any space is the the ARIN Free Pool at implementation, likely June. Its not likely there will be a single contiguous block, likely a hodgepodge of smaller blocks, and it may take a while to collect a /16 for the reservation. 4. Do nothing, let events overtake the policy if they do, maybe abandoning the policy for lack of IPv4 address space late in the process. There are likely other variations on these themes. Regarding option #1: It might be possible to advance this proposal as-is to Recommended Draft prior to the PPC in San Antonio, at the January AC meeting. However, in order to justify recommending this to the AC, I will need to see significantly more support for this policy on PPML prior to the next AC meeting in two weeks. Even then it is likely not possible to advance the proposal prior to the PPC in San Antonio at this point, its less than a month away. I will raise option #2 with the AC at our meeting in two weeks. However, for this options to even be considered, I'm quite sure that both the AC and the Board will want to see significant community support on PPML before they would moving forward with such an option. I am interested to hear the community's opinions on the issue of this policy and the timing of ARIN Free Pool run out. Do you support any of the above options? Some other option? So, if you support this policy, and particularly if you think this policy should go to the PPC at NANOG in San Antonio in February as Recommended Draft policy please speak up ASAP. Do you have comments on or support the alternate text proposed in the email at this link? http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2014-December/029565.html Finally, if anyone opposes this policy it is important to speak up, as at this point no one has expressed any opposition to the policy at all. Thanks and I look forward to your comments. On 11/25/14 14:35 , ARIN wrote: > On 20 November 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted > "ARIN-prop-213 Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4" as a > Draft Policy. > > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21 is below and can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_21.html > > You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft > Policy 2014-21 on the Public Policy Mailing List. > > The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance > of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number > Resource Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are: > > * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration > * Technically Sound > * Supported by the Community > > The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21 > Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 > > Date: 25 November 2014 > > Problem Statement: > > At the time that this section of policy was written, IXP growth in > North America was stagnant. Efforts of late have increased > significantly within the IXP standards and other communities to > improve critical infrastructure in North America. This effort is > paying dividends and we project that a /16 will not be enough to > continue to improve global interconnect conditions and support needed IXP CI infrastructure. > > Policy statement: > > Change to text in section 4.4 Micro Allocations: > > Current text: > > ARIN will place an equivalent of a /16 of IPv4 address space in a > reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. If at > the end of the policy term there is unused address space remaining in > this pool, ARIN staff is authorized to utilize this space in a manner > consistent with community expectations. > > Proposed text to replace current text entirely: > > ARIN will place an equivalent of a /15 of IPv4 address space in a > reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate -- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================ _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From owen at delong.com Sat Jan 10 03:15:40 2015 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 00:15:40 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Requesting Feedback: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10 In-Reply-To: <5E9E18FF-E5EF-4238-A94B-FC8B84A0A238@dyn.com> References: <3F6F2923-BD5B-46BB-BED5-F74E422232C1@dyn.com> <5E9E18FF-E5EF-4238-A94B-FC8B84A0A238@dyn.com> Message-ID: BCP38 was out before RIRs started moving down to /24s. It didn?t take long for ISPs to adapt to /24s from /20s. I don?t think BCP38 experience is particularly telling on this one. BCP38 has some complexities in certain environments. Setting up a simple prefix-length filter or modifying one for a particular prefix, OTOH, is pretty well trodden path for most ISPs. Owen > On Jan 9, 2015, at 10:59 , Karl Brumund wrote: > >> On Jan 9, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jan 9, 2015, at 10:33 , Karl Brumund > wrote: >>> >>>> On Jan 8, 2015, at 5:40 PM, Heather Schiller > wrote: >>>> >>>> Happy New Year PPML! >>>> >>>> As one of the shepherds of this policy, it would be very helpful to hear from the community on this proposal. Comments for or against are welcome, as are any questions. >>>> >>> >>> Reading 2008-5, it appears that the authors at the time expected that ISPs may relax their filter rules to allow longer than /24 routes. Given that doing so would encourage a lot more deaggregation of existing /24s, I find it unlikely that ISPs will permit longer than /24 in any appreciable number to matter. >>> Thus it seems that having a minimum of /28 for direct allocations is impractical, and that these would happen through assignments, as today. >> >> As one of the authors of 2008-5, yes, you are (mostly) correct. >> >> I didn?t expect ISPs to relax their filters in general, but I did expect ISPs might relax their filters for this particular designated block. I don?t see any reason that wouldn?t be possible even now as that would not encourage (or even allow) deaggregation of existing /24s. >> >> We are talking about a relatively small block being preserved to provide minimal resources for (primarily) post-runout new entrants (or at least that was my intent at the time of writing). >> >>> I see nothing wrong with 2014-22, but am open to hearing other comments. >> >> I see no advantage to 2014-22. I think when this block comes into play, since it is a particular designated block, ISPs will react relatively quickly to allow longer prefixes within this space when it becomes necessary. > > Given the pain of even getting some of BCP38 implemented, I am having trouble sharing Owen?s optimism that this would happen. I would like to, I really sincerely honestly would, but then again I would also like to route in a world that implemented BCP38. > > ?karl > >> >> Since it is only a single /10, even at /28, we?re talking about a maximum of 16,384 additional prefixes. >> >> Owen >> >>> >>> ?karl >>> >>>> You may want to read this report from RIPE Labs, specifically discussing the existing policy, and tests they did on routability of small prefixes. >>>> >>>> https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/propagation-of-longer-than-24-ipv4-prefixes >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> --Heather >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: ARIN > >>>> Date: Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 3:35 PM >>>> Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10 >>>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net >>>> >>>> >>>> On 20 November 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-214 Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10" as a Draft Policy. >>>> >>>> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22 is below and can be found at: >>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_22.html >>>> >>>> You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft >>>> Policy 2014-22 on the Public Policy Mailing List. >>>> >>>> The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance >>>> of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource >>>> Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are: >>>> >>>> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration >>>> * Technically Sound >>>> * Supported by the Community >>>> >>>> The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at: >>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html >>>> >>>> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: >>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Communications and Member Services >>>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >>>> >>>> >>>> ## * ## >>>> >>>> >>>> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22 >>>> Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10 >>>> >>>> Date: 25 November 2014 >>>> >>>> Problem Statement: >>>> >>>> The current section 4.10 Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 Deployment creates an issue where a small new organization that requires an IPv4 allocation or assignment would potentially receive a block that today would be unroutable and therefore unusable for it intended purposes. >>>> >>>> Policy statement: >>>> >>>> Change >>>> >>>> "This block will be subject to a minimum size allocation of /28 and a maximum size allocation of /24. ARIN should use sparse allocation when possible within that /10 block." >>>> >>>> To >>>> >>>> "This block will be subject to an allocation of /24. ARIN should use sparse allocation when possible within that /10 block." >>>> >>>> Timetable for implementation: Immediate >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PPML >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net ). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PPML >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net ). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PPML >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net ). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cb.list6 at gmail.com Sat Jan 10 10:44:08 2015 From: cb.list6 at gmail.com (Ca By) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 07:44:08 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Requesting Feedback: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thursday, January 8, 2015, Heather Schiller wrote: > Happy New Year PPML! > > As one of the shepherds of this policy, it would be very helpful to hear > from the community on this proposal. Comments for or against are welcome, > as are any questions. > > You may want to read this report from RIPE Labs, specifically discussing > the existing policy, and tests they did on routability of small prefixes. > > > https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/propagation-of-longer-than-24-ipv4-prefixes > > Thanks! > --Heather > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: ARIN > > Date: Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 3:35 PM > Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in > Section 4.10 > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > > > > On 20 November 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-214 > Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10" as a Draft Policy. > > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22 is below and can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_22.html > > You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft > Policy 2014-22 on the Public Policy Mailing List. > > > The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance > of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource > Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are: > > * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration > * Technically Sound > * Supported by the Community > > The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22 > Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10 > > Date: 25 November 2014 > > Problem Statement: > > The current section 4.10 Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 > Deployment creates an issue where a small new organization that requires an > IPv4 allocation or assignment would potentially receive a block that today > would be unroutable and therefore unusable for it intended purposes. > > Policy statement: > > Change > > "This block will be subject to a minimum size allocation of /28 and a > maximum size allocation of /24. ARIN should use sparse allocation when > possible within that /10 block." > > To > > "This block will be subject to an allocation of /24. ARIN should use > sparse allocation when possible within that /10 block." > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net > ). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net > if you experience any > issues. > I am fully opposed to any proposal that allows ARIN to set the expectation that anything longer than a /24 will be reachable. It is the long standing practice that such a small allocation is provided by the upstream from an aggregate block. I will not be updating my prefix list filters and expanding my RIB if this passes. Those RIB spots are for ipv6, not another attempt at cgn / ipv4 life support. CB -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Sat Jan 10 13:12:00 2015 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 10:12:00 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Requesting Feedback: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01054931-D67E-499B-A366-5E45B8A5E261@delong.com> > > I am fully opposed to any proposal that allows ARIN to set the expectation that anything longer than a /24 will be reachable. You misunderstand the situation. The existing policy allows for /28s to be allocated from this /10. It does not set any expectations about reachability. > It is the long standing practice that such a small allocation is provided by the upstream from an aggregate block. It is the long standing practice that upstreams have blocks to assign. It is the long standing practice that when they run out, they can go back to the RIR for more. These practices are coming to an end. The question is how to best handle supporting new entrants during the endgame. > I will not be updating my prefix list filters and expanding my RIB if this passes. Those RIB spots are for ipv6, not another attempt at cgn / ipv4 life support. I?d settle for you fixing IPv6 for iPhone users on your network. It currently doesn?t work. Insisting that Apple implement your particular favorite transition mechanism rather than providing a dual-stack solution does not, IMHO, allow you to blame Apple for this deficiency. (I say this as one of your customers) In any case, the proposal is to eliminate the current /28 possibility and limit allocations from this block to /24. As such, I think you are in support of the proposal though your expression of opposition to the current policy as if it were a proposal is somewhat confusing. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bill at herrin.us Sat Jan 10 13:51:05 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 13:51:05 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Requesting Feedback: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10 In-Reply-To: References: <3F6F2923-BD5B-46BB-BED5-F74E422232C1@dyn.com> <5E9E18FF-E5EF-4238-A94B-FC8B84A0A238@dyn.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 3:15 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > BCP38 was out before RIRs started moving down to /24s. It didn?t take long > for ISPs to adapt to /24s from /20s. Hi Owen, Most ISPs never adopted /20 in the first place. The were /24 before and after. Those that adopted /20 were mostly aware of what goes on here so had only the trouble they made for themselves. /24 is different. Announcements smaller than /24 were interdicted right at the start of CIDR by people who very nearly been burned by too many announcements. The /24 filter is very widespread. On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Heather Schiller wrote: > As one of the shepherds of this policy, it would be very helpful to hear > from the community on this proposal. Comments for or against are welcome, > as are any questions. > > "This block will be subject to a minimum size allocation of /28 and a > maximum size allocation of /24. ARIN should use sparse allocation when > possible within that /10 block." Hi Heather, I have no objection to changing the size to a flat /24. I do wonder about the efficacy of the policy overall. For something this transitory, is there a sound reason why addresses assigned from an upstream ISP are not suitable? What is ARIN's experience with allocations under this policy? Have there been any? What were the justifications? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: May I solve your unusual networking challenges? From owen at delong.com Sat Jan 10 16:05:44 2015 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 13:05:44 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Requesting Feedback: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10 In-Reply-To: References: <3F6F2923-BD5B-46BB-BED5-F74E422232C1@dyn.com> <5E9E18FF-E5EF-4238-A94B-FC8B84A0A238@dyn.com> Message-ID: <34521175-B94D-475C-B110-7EC877A95E33@delong.com> > On Jan 10, 2015, at 10:51 , William Herrin wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 3:15 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> BCP38 was out before RIRs started moving down to /24s. It didn?t take long >> for ISPs to adapt to /24s from /20s. > > Hi Owen, > > Most ISPs never adopted /20 in the first place. The were /24 before > and after. Those that adopted /20 were mostly aware of what goes on > here so had only the trouble they made for themselves. Actually, many adopted /20 at the time. At the time, their routers were also close to collapse. Over time, things got better (the growth in prefixes slowed long enough for technology to get ahead). > /24 is different. Announcements smaller than /24 were interdicted > right at the start of CIDR by people who very nearly been burned by > too many announcements. The /24 filter is very widespread. Yes, it is. I have no illusions that the /28 filter will be immediately widespread for this prefix. However, it doesn?t necessarily need to be. If it gets adopted by a select handful of the providers that tend to be the most aware of what is happening here, then so long as the more specifics make it from the end-site in question to one of those providers, chances are pretty good that it will be generally workable. Is it ideal? No. However, I will point out that anything involving IPv4 at this point is far from ideal. > I have no objection to changing the size to a flat /24. I do wonder > about the efficacy of the policy overall. For something this > transitory, is there a sound reason why addresses assigned from an > upstream ISP are not suitable? > > What is ARIN's experience with allocations under this policy? Have > there been any? What were the justifications? I don?t anticipate that there will be any desire or need for significant allocations under this policy until after some ISPs are no longer able to issue these longer prefixes to their customers. This is intended to provide a set-aside for new entrants after that point in case there are enough legacy holdouts that have not adopted IPv6 as to make it impossible to be ?on the internet? without being at least able to talk to the IPv4 internet. I think there have been a small number of applications under this policy, but I don?t know for sure. However, I suspect them to be more a matter of attempts at creative application of policy than the core need for which the policy was intended which does not exist as yet. Owen From bill at herrin.us Sat Jan 10 18:15:58 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 18:15:58 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Requesting Feedback: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10 In-Reply-To: <34521175-B94D-475C-B110-7EC877A95E33@delong.com> References: <3F6F2923-BD5B-46BB-BED5-F74E422232C1@dyn.com> <5E9E18FF-E5EF-4238-A94B-FC8B84A0A238@dyn.com> <34521175-B94D-475C-B110-7EC877A95E33@delong.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > I don?t anticipate that there will be any desire or need for significant > allocations under this policy until after some ISPs are no longer able > to issue these longer prefixes to their customers. Hi Owen, I haven't been able to come up with a plausible scenario where prior to IPv4's effective end of use, an ISP can't come up with a /28 for a customer with the right number of zeros in their bill. Not a competent ISP that intends to stay in business anyway. If you have a scenario in mind then by all means walk us through it and mind the details. This looks like a solution in search of a problem to me. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: May I solve your unusual networking challenges? From gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com Sat Jan 10 21:58:09 2015 From: gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com (Gary Buhrmaster) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 02:58:09 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Requesting Feedback: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10 In-Reply-To: References: <3F6F2923-BD5B-46BB-BED5-F74E422232C1@dyn.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: .... > I see no advantage to 2014-22. I think when this block comes into play, > since it is a particular designated block, ISPs will react relatively > quickly to allow longer prefixes within this space when it becomes > necessary. Currently opposed to 2014-22, but can be convinced to take a pragmatic support position with some actual facts. >From a theoretical perspective, 2014-22 should not seem to be necessary. However, while ARIN has never insured number routability, the reality is many /24 filters are in place. Since this block is intended to be a lifeline, that lifeline would ideally not be attached to an anchor (of needing to convince others to update their filters). What I would like to hear is the results of even a non-scientific straw poll (perhaps at the upcoming NANOG at the PPC?) that indicates that ISPs have already updated their filters accordingly to allow a /28 out of this /10, or have plans to do so (or will choose not do so). That would be highly helpful to me to decide whether to support this proposal as one of those things that needs to be advanced (while holding ones nose). Gary From scottleibrand at gmail.com Sun Jan 11 00:53:17 2015 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 21:53:17 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Requesting Feedback: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10 In-Reply-To: References: <3F6F2923-BD5B-46BB-BED5-F74E422232C1@dyn.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > > > Currently opposed to 2014-22, but can be convinced to take > a pragmatic support position with some actual facts. > +1 But my concern is not so much with the filtering question (it's pretty clear that filters are not open now, and any future opening of filters will probably depend on who gets /25 or smaller blocks, and what they're used for). Instead, my question is a simple question of staff interpretation. Currently, 4.10 is "subject to a minimum size allocation of /28 and a maximum size allocation of /24." I presume that means that if an organization came to ARIN today with a qualifying need for IPv4 space to support IPv6 deployment, but could not justify need for a /24, that they would be given a smaller block under 4.10. Question 1: What test does ARIN staff use to determine what size of block someone qualifies for under 4.10? In particular, is the test for getting a /24 under 4.10 the same as for free pool allocations/assignments under 4.2.2.1.1. and 4.3.2? Secondarily, I wonder if 2014-22, if adopted, would make it easier or harder to get space under 4.10. I could see staff interpreting the revised 4.10 language as either allowing anyone with a legitimate IPv6 deployment need (of any size) to get a /24, or as requiring that such a need be large enough to justify an entire /24 before an allocation/assignment could be made. Question 2: Would adoption of 2014-22 allow someone who needs, for example, 75 IPv4 addresses for a NAT-PT or NAT464 pool immediately, growing to 100 in 1 year (and who would therefore qualify for a /25 under 4.10 today), to get a /24, or would they not qualify for anything until they could justify >50% of a /24? John, if those questions are straightforward to address, I think they would inform the debate as to whether 2014-22 is necessary/useful. Alternatively, if we need to wait until a full staff assessment is performed to satisfactorily answer them, I'm happy to wait to make up my mind until that is done. Thanks, Scott -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Sun Jan 11 15:44:40 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 20:44:40 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Requesting Feedback: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10 In-Reply-To: References: <3F6F2923-BD5B-46BB-BED5-F74E422232C1@dyn.com> Message-ID: <617D01F9-99F9-4290-A3DF-07F23AEC9016@arin.net> On Jan 11, 2015, at 12:53 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > ... > Instead, my question is a simple question of staff interpretation. Currently, 4.10 is "subject to a minimum size allocation of /28 and a maximum size allocation of /24." I presume that means that if an organization came to ARIN today with a qualifying need for IPv4 space to support IPv6 deployment, but could not justify need for a /24, that they would be given a smaller block under 4.10. Scott - Yes, that is correct, but would only be done if the customer had no credible case for receiving a /24 IPv4 allocation, as we presently do not have systems which support delegation of reverse DNS services for IPv4 allocations that are smaller than a /24. > Question 1: What test does ARIN staff use to determine what size of block someone qualifies for under 4.10? In particular, is the test for getting a /24 under 4.10 the same as for free pool allocations/assignments under 4.2.2.1.1. and 4.3.2? The test for making an allocation is to confirm that the requesting organization has immediate IPv6 deployment requirements. (To date, only one organization has qualified under 4.10, and they were issued a /24, as they were intending to use the space for immediate IPv6 transition needs and could plans sufficient for the allocation size.) Because this policy has no specific criteria for initial allocation other than the "immediate IPv6 deployment? requirement, staff will continue to issue a /24 under this policy to any organization who has need and can credibly show that they will utilize the /24 over time. If an organization cannot show that they will ever have need the /24 of IPv4 space for this purpose, under the present policy we would need to make a smaller allocation (and would work around any system issues in a less than elegant fashion.) > Secondarily, I wonder if 2014-22, if adopted, would make it easier or harder to get space under 4.10. I could see staff interpreting the revised 4.10 language as either allowing anyone with a legitimate IPv6 deployment need (of any size) to get a /24, or as requiring that such a need be large enough to justify an entire /24 before an allocation/assignment could be made. Adoption of the draft policy would make clear that any requester who had an credible ?immediate IPv6 deployment? need (and not met by any other allocations or assignments) should receive a /24 allocation. It would not materially change any organizations ability to get allocations, but make quite clear the size of any allocations made. > Question 2: Would adoption of 2014-22 allow someone who needs, for example, 75 IPv4 addresses for a NAT-PT or NAT464 pool immediately, growing to 100 in 1 year (and who would therefore qualify for a /25 under 4.10 today), to get a /24, or would they not qualify for anything until they could justify >50% of a /24? The organization would qualify for /25 under present policy (presuming no other IPv4 need for IPv6 transition purposes is anticipated) and would qualify for a /24 if draft policy 2014-22 was adopted. I hope this information helps consideration of the draft policy by the community. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From scottleibrand at gmail.com Sun Jan 11 19:03:07 2015 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 00:03:07 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Requesting Feedback: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10 References: <3F6F2923-BD5B-46BB-BED5-F74E422232C1@dyn.com> <617D01F9-99F9-4290-A3DF-07F23AEC9016@arin.net> Message-ID: Ok, thanks. Based on that explanation, I don't have any objections to this policy proposal, but neither do I think there is any real need for it. -Scott On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 12:44 PM John Curran wrote: > On Jan 11, 2015, at 12:53 AM, Scott Leibrand > wrote: > > ... > > Instead, my question is a simple question of staff interpretation. > Currently, 4.10 is "subject to a minimum size allocation of /28 and a > maximum size allocation of /24." I presume that means that if an > organization came to ARIN today with a qualifying need for IPv4 space to > support IPv6 deployment, but could not justify need for a /24, that they > would be given a smaller block under 4.10. > > Scott - > > Yes, that is correct, but would only be done if the customer had no > credible case for receiving > a /24 IPv4 allocation, as we presently do not have systems which > support delegation of reverse > DNS services for IPv4 allocations that are smaller than a /24. > > > Question 1: What test does ARIN staff use to determine what size of > block someone qualifies for under 4.10? In particular, is the test for > getting a /24 under 4.10 the same as for free pool allocations/assignments > under 4.2.2.1.1. and 4.3.2? > > The test for making an allocation is to confirm that the requesting > organization has immediate > IPv6 deployment requirements. (To date, only one organization has > qualified under 4.10, and > they were issued a /24, as they were intending to use the space for > immediate IPv6 transition > needs and could plans sufficient for the allocation size.) > > Because this policy has no specific criteria for initial allocation > other than the "immediate IPv6 > deployment? requirement, staff will continue to issue a /24 under this > policy to any organization > who has need and can credibly show that they will utilize the /24 over > time. If an organization > cannot show that they will ever have need the /24 of IPv4 space for > this purpose, under the > present policy we would need to make a smaller allocation (and would > work around any > system issues in a less than elegant fashion.) > > > Secondarily, I wonder if 2014-22, if adopted, would make it easier or > harder to get space under 4.10. I could see staff interpreting the revised > 4.10 language as either allowing anyone with a legitimate IPv6 deployment > need (of any size) to get a /24, or as requiring that such a need be large > enough to justify an entire /24 before an allocation/assignment could be > made. > > Adoption of the draft policy would make clear that any requester who > had an credible > ?immediate IPv6 deployment? need (and not met by any other > allocations or assignments) > should receive a /24 allocation. It would not materially change any > organizations ability to > get allocations, but make quite clear the size of any allocations made. > > > Question 2: Would adoption of 2014-22 allow someone who needs, for > example, 75 IPv4 addresses for a NAT-PT or NAT464 pool immediately, growing > to 100 in 1 year (and who would therefore qualify for a /25 under 4.10 > today), to get a /24, or would they not qualify for anything until they > could justify >50% of a /24? > > The organization would qualify for /25 under present policy (presuming > no other IPv4 need > for IPv6 transition purposes is anticipated) and would qualify for a > /24 if draft policy 2014-22 > was adopted. > > I hope this information helps consideration of the draft policy by the > community. > > Thanks! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farmer at umn.edu Thu Jan 15 11:10:39 2015 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 10:10:39 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 In-Reply-To: References: <5474E803.9020504@arin.net> <54AF2FE5.7030803@umn.edu> <5daefc653f57495b80f3c616a621dee0@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <69244D15-3C72-492A-8367-1BB7E12CAD49@delong.com> Message-ID: <69544973-B65A-42EE-AECC-C65CDE03B8B7@umn.edu> Hi, Leo One more thing; > On Jan 9, 2015, at 12:09, Leo Vegoda wrote: > > Hi Owen, > > Owen DeLong wrote: > >> In any case, there is at minimum a /13, right? There?s no possibility for the pool to shrink >> between now and then if I understand things correctly. > > Other than the scheduled allocations to the RIRs, the only other withdrawals result from IETF actions. I am not aware of any assignments being contemplated in active I-Ds but they are generally quite small and unlikely to make a significant impact. Based on the current status, do you think there will be a September 1, 2015 distribution to the RIRs from the recovered IPv4 pool? And if there is what size would you expect it to be? Yea, I could probably go run the code you pointed out, but it is much easier just to ask you. :) Thanks. > Kind regards, > > Leo Vegoda -- =============================================== David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: +1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: +1-612-812-9952 =============================================== From leo.vegoda at icann.org Thu Jan 15 11:51:27 2015 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 16:51:27 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 In-Reply-To: <69544973-B65A-42EE-AECC-C65CDE03B8B7@umn.edu> References: <5474E803.9020504@arin.net> <54AF2FE5.7030803@umn.edu> <5daefc653f57495b80f3c616a621dee0@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <69244D15-3C72-492A-8367-1BB7E12CAD49@delong.com> <69544973-B65A-42EE-AECC-C65CDE03B8B7@umn.edu> Message-ID: <93f19e7dc9db45fe9f25dd1e63ea797e@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Hi David, David Farmer wrote: [...] > Based on the current status, do you think there will be a September 1, 2015 > distribution to the RIRs from the recovered IPv4 pool? And if there is what > size would you expect it to be? > > Yea, I could probably go run the code you pointed out, but it is much easier > just to ask you. :) In May last year I ran the software through a sequence of 12 allocations and I have attached a small zip file with the outputs so you can see how the pool roughly halves at each scheduled allocation. As required by the policy, the size of the allocation drops as the pool is reduced, so the allocated space drops from a /12 (or equivalent) to a /13 (or equivalent) and then a /14 (or equivalent) and so on. Each RIR received[1] a /12 in September 2014, so the March 2015 allocation is likely to be a /13 (or equivalent) unless a significant contribution is made to the recovered pool or a significant withdrawal is made by the IETF through assignments made in one or more IESG approved RFCs. Hope that helps. Regards, Leo [1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-recovered-address-space/ipv4-recovered-address-space.xhtml#ipv4-recovered-address-space-2 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Archive.zip Type: application/x-zip-compressed Size: 26500 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5475 bytes Desc: not available URL: From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Jan 16 00:53:02 2015 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 00:53:02 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201501160553.t0G5r2Zw006694@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 25 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 16 00:53:01 EST 2015 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 16.00% | 4 | 32.52% | 149666 | kbrumund at dyn.com 20.00% | 5 | 20.03% | 92171 | owen at delong.com 12.00% | 3 | 17.16% | 78991 | leo.vegoda at icann.org 12.00% | 3 | 4.56% | 20975 | jcurran at arin.net 8.00% | 2 | 5.48% | 25226 | scottleibrand at gmail.com 8.00% | 2 | 2.98% | 13703 | bill at herrin.us 4.00% | 1 | 6.38% | 29355 | rudi.daniel at gmail.com 4.00% | 1 | 3.22% | 14799 | cb.list6 at gmail.com 4.00% | 1 | 2.95% | 13558 | david.huberman at microsoft.com 4.00% | 1 | 1.77% | 8142 | farmer at umn.edu 4.00% | 1 | 1.49% | 6861 | narten at us.ibm.com 4.00% | 1 | 1.47% | 6782 | gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 25 |100.00% | 460229 | Total From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Jan 23 00:53:03 2015 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 00:53:03 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201501230553.t0N5r367030435@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 1 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 23 00:53:03 EST 2015 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 1 |100.00% | 7060 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 1 |100.00% | 7060 | Total From info at arin.net Mon Jan 26 12:37:44 2015 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:37:44 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-6: Remove Operational Reverse DNS Text (was: Remove 7.1) - revised In-Reply-To: <52E91DE0.2010004@arin.net> References: <52E91DE0.2010004@arin.net> Message-ID: <54C67B68.1010709@arin.net> ARIN-2014-6 has been revised. This draft policy is open for discussion on this mailing list and will be on the agenda at the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Consultation at NANOG 63 in San Antonio. ARIN-2014-6 is below and can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_6.html Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## Draft Policy ARIN-2014-6 Remove Operational Reverse DNS Text (was: Remove 7.1) Date: 21 January 2014 Problem Statement: 7.1 attempts to assert rules on rDNS management at ARIN. It fails to do so because it only addresses in-addr.arpa (missing equally important rules in ip6.arpa). It's also not based on any RFC; it's an arbitrary decision made by ARIN technical staff. We should remove this text from policy, as it represents operational practice rather than ARIN number policy. In feedback received at public policy meetings and on the PPML mailing list, the Community expressed a desire for IPv4 and IPv6 policy on reverse DNS to be congruent (that is to say, it makes no sense to remove 7.1 without addressing 6.5.6 which is similarly operationally prescriptive) and bring this proposal forward again. Policy statement: Remove 7.1 Remove 6.5.6 Comments: a.Timetable for implementation: Immediate b.Anything else: 7.1. Maintaining IN-ADDRs All ISPs receiving one or more distinct /16 CIDR blocks of IP addresses from ARIN will be responsible for maintaining all IN-ADDR.ARPA domain records for their respective customers. For blocks smaller than /16, and for the segment of larger blocks smaller than /16, ARIN can maintain IN-ADDRs. 6.5.6. Reverse lookup When an RIR delegates IPv6 address space to an organization, it also delegates the responsibility to manage the reverse lookup zone that corresponds to the allocated IPv6 address space. Each organization should properly manage its reverse lookup zone. When making an address assignment, the organization must delegate to an assignee organization, upon request, the responsibility to manage the reverse lookup zone that corresponds to the assigned address. On 1/29/14 10:27 AM, ARIN wrote: > On 24 January 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted > "ARIN-prop-198 Remove 7.1" as a Draft Policy. > > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-6 is below and can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_6.html > > You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft > Policy 2014-6 on the Public Policy Mailing List. > > The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance > of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource > Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are: > > * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration > * Technically Sound > * Supported by the Community > > The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-6 > Remove 7.1 > > Date: 29 January 2014 > > Problem Statement: > > 7.1 attempts to assert rules on rDNS management at ARIN. It fails to do > so because it only addresses in-addr.arpa (missing equally important > rules in ip6.arpa). It's also not based on any RFC; it's an arbitrary > decision made by ARIN technical staff. We should remove this text from > policy, as it represents operational practice rather than ARIN number > policy. > > Policy statement: > > Remove 7.1 > > Comments: > a.Timetable for implementation: Immediate > b.Anything else: > > 7.1. Maintaining IN-ADDRs > > All ISPs receiving one or more distinct /16 CIDR blocks of IP addresses > from ARIN will be responsible for maintaining all IN-ADDR.ARPA domain > records for their respective customers. For blocks smaller than /16, and > for the segment of larger blocks smaller than /16, ARIN can maintain > IN-ADDRs. > From kkargel at polartel.com Wed Jan 28 10:25:14 2015 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 15:25:14 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] So long, Farewell, Auf Wiedersehen, Goodbye Message-ID: <1ebc465136a9428a83bfd611e7c2ac49@Mail12.polartel.local> I thought I would make a little noise on the list on my way out. I will be leaving my current position this week and unsubscribing from ppml. I may be back from my next position (whatever that may be). PPML has been a tremendous learning experience for me and I feel I have made some friends here. I will miss the discussions and the people greatly. Especially the discussions where we didn't agree and I received education. Thank you all for helping me grow and for making the world a better place. If anyone wants to keep in touch please connect to my LinkedIn or I will happily provide my personal email to anyone that wants it. If anyone gets to Sioux Falls SD I'll buy the first round! If this noise is inappropriate I trust the mod will intercept and remove it. So long all, it's been real. [Kevin_Kargel] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 8199 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jan 28 10:41:44 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 15:41:44 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] So long, Farewell, Auf Wiedersehen, Goodbye In-Reply-To: <1ebc465136a9428a83bfd611e7c2ac49@Mail12.polartel.local> References: <1ebc465136a9428a83bfd611e7c2ac49@Mail12.polartel.local> Message-ID: On Jan 28, 2015, at 10:25 AM, Kevin Kargel > wrote: I thought I would make a little noise on the list on my way out. I will be leaving my current position this week and unsubscribing from ppml. I may be back from my next position (whatever that may be). PPML has been a tremendous learning experience for me and I feel I have made some friends here. I will miss the discussions and the people greatly. Especially the discussions where we didn?t agree and I received education. Thank you all for helping me grow and for making the world a better place. If anyone wants to keep in touch please connect to my LinkedIn or I will happily provide my personal email to anyone that wants it. If anyone gets to Sioux Falls SD I?ll buy the first round! If this noise is inappropriate I trust the mod will intercept and remove it. So long all, it?s been real. Kevin - Best wishes on your endeavors, and thanks for all your contributions over the years! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Jan 30 00:53:02 2015 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 00:53:02 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201501300553.t0U5r28r020358@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 4 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 30 00:53:02 EST 2015 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 25.00% | 1 | 45.01% | 21740 | kkargel at polartel.com 25.00% | 1 | 23.84% | 11516 | jcurran at arin.net 25.00% | 1 | 17.91% | 8651 | info at arin.net 25.00% | 1 | 13.23% | 6391 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 4 |100.00% | 48298 | Total