From bskeenes at arin.net Mon Feb 26 15:18:37 2001 From: bskeenes at arin.net (Barry Skeenes) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:18:37 -0500 Subject: Request for CLEW Input Message-ID: > Member Services is discussing what kind of increased benefits ARIN can > offer its Members. One consideration is the reinstatement of a > Members-only website for providing news, training and other items of > interest to the Members. > > What content would you like to see on this site? Be specific please. Are > there items you would take off the public site and make available for use > only by Members? A dynamic website could be useful not only to current > Members, but also for bringing new entities into ARIN's membership. > > Please consider this matter and send suggestions to the CLEW list in > preparation for the upcoming Members Meeting. > Regards, Barry Skeenes Technical Writer AMERICAN REGISTRY FOR INTERNET NUMBERS bskeenes at arin.net 703-227-9854 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 2136 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lhoward at uu.net Mon Feb 26 16:11:08 2001 From: lhoward at uu.net (Lee Howard) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:11:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: Request for CLEW Input In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'd be interested in a list of aggregatable announcements, a la the Tony Bates CIDR Report, the Weekly Routing Table Report from pfs at cisco.com, or James Aldridge's http://www.mcvax.org/~jhma/routing/ page. Simply linking to those pages would be better than nothing, but I'd really like to see what could be done by someone who gets paid for it. I assume ARIN receives a full routing table from several providers, from which to glean this kind of information. An essay on what to do with this information might also helpful. I would also expect that ARIN has people monitoring many public mailing lists, for which maybe a digest would be useful. In particular, a "Threadspotting" sort of pointer to threads specifically about ARIN or to which someone at ARIN responded. Naturally, this would include the various ARIN lists. Lists of conferences and events at which ARIN will be represented might be handy. Another thing I've been thinking about but haven't suggested (not sure whether it belongs on CLEW or PPL) is a discussion of IP reclamation. I'm probably not in favor of forcible reclamation, but it would be interesting to see what the community thinks about the issues involved in reclaining unused (or poorly used) IPv4 space. This could be useful on CLEW or the member site as a monograph describing why it's a good idea to return unused space, and maybe an implementation plan on how to renumber large networks. I'm not speaking in an official capacity for UUNET, A WorldCom Company. Lee On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Barry Skeenes wrote: > Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:18:37 -0500 > From: Barry Skeenes > To: clew at arin.net > Subject: Request for CLEW Input > > > > Member Services is discussing what kind of increased benefits ARIN can > > offer its Members. One consideration is the reinstatement of a > > Members-only website for providing news, training and other items of > > interest to the Members. > > > > What content would you like to see on this site? Be specific please. Are > > there items you would take off the public site and make available for use > > only by Members? A dynamic website could be useful not only to current > > Members, but also for bringing new entities into ARIN's membership. > > > > Please consider this matter and send suggestions to the CLEW list in > > preparation for the upcoming Members Meeting. > > > Regards, > > Barry Skeenes > Technical Writer > AMERICAN REGISTRY FOR INTERNET NUMBERS > bskeenes at arin.net > 703-227-9854 > > From billd at cait.wustl.edu Mon Feb 26 16:30:06 2001 From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:30:06 -0600 Subject: Request for CLEW Input Message-ID: Great feedback....more of this please....from the rest of you lurkers... Bill Darte AC and CLEW Chair > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee Howard [mailto:lhoward at uu.net] > Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 3:11 PM > To: Barry Skeenes > Cc: clew at arin.net > Subject: Re: Request for CLEW Input > > > I'd be interested in a list of aggregatable announcements, a la the > Tony Bates CIDR Report, the Weekly Routing Table Report from > pfs at cisco.com, or James Aldridge's http://www.mcvax.org/~jhma/routing/ > page. Simply linking to those pages would be better than nothing, but > I'd really like to see what could be done by someone who gets paid for > it. > > I assume ARIN receives a full routing table from several providers, > from which to glean this kind of information. An essay on what to do > with this information might also helpful. > > I would also expect that ARIN has people monitoring many public > mailing lists, for which maybe a digest would be useful. In > particular, > a "Threadspotting" sort of pointer to threads specifically about ARIN > or to which someone at ARIN responded. Naturally, this would include > the various ARIN lists. > > Lists of conferences and events at which ARIN will be > represented might > be handy. > > Another thing I've been thinking about but haven't suggested (not sure > whether it belongs on CLEW or PPL) is a discussion of IP reclamation. > I'm probably not in favor of forcible reclamation, but it would be > interesting to see what the community thinks about the issues involved > in reclaining unused (or poorly used) IPv4 space. This could > be useful > on CLEW or the member site as a monograph describing why it's a good > idea to return unused space, and maybe an implementation plan on how > to renumber large networks. > > I'm not speaking in an official capacity for UUNET, A > WorldCom Company. > > Lee > > > > On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Barry Skeenes wrote: > > > Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:18:37 -0500 > > From: Barry Skeenes > > To: clew at arin.net > > Subject: Request for CLEW Input > > > > > > > Member Services is discussing what kind of increased > benefits ARIN can > > > offer its Members. One consideration is the reinstatement of a > > > Members-only website for providing news, training and > other items of > > > interest to the Members. > > > > > > What content would you like to see on this site? Be > specific please. Are > > > there items you would take off the public site and make > available for use > > > only by Members? A dynamic website could be useful not > only to current > > > Members, but also for bringing new entities into ARIN's > membership. > > > > > > Please consider this matter and send suggestions to the > CLEW list in > > > preparation for the upcoming Members Meeting. > > > > > Regards, > > > > Barry Skeenes > > Technical Writer > > AMERICAN REGISTRY FOR INTERNET NUMBERS > > bskeenes at arin.net > > 703-227-9854 > > > > > From hcb at clark.net Wed Feb 28 00:26:14 2001 From: hcb at clark.net (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 00:26:14 -0500 Subject: Request for CLEW Input In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In one of my presentations to NANOG last week, the vast majority of questions related to obtaining and justifying address space. In particular, North American ISPs complained about how their requests for their customers to justify assignments and usage were resented, and how competitors' sales people often used that as a wedge "we'll give you a /24, or whatever, if you change your service to us. We won't hassle you with all the paperwork the incumbent is demanding." This seems to be far less of a problem in Europe, and I'm beginning to think the RIPE NCC model of LIR's (as distinct from generic members) is part of the solution. A LIR can present itself as a steward of address space, much as a CPA or physician is expected to exercise independent professional integrity. Frankly, I'm becoming less and less clear why someone becomes an ARIN member other than generically supporting part of the Internet structure. There's much more justification to become a RIPE LIR. > > Member Services is discussing what kind of increased benefits ARIN can >> offer its Members. One consideration is the reinstatement of a >> Members-only website for providing news, training and other items of >> interest to the Members. >> >> What content would you like to see on this site? Be specific please. Are >> there items you would take off the public site and make available for use >> only by Members? A dynamic website could be useful not only to current >> Members, but also for bringing new entities into ARIN's membership. >> >> Please consider this matter and send suggestions to the CLEW list in >> preparation for the upcoming Members Meeting. >> >Regards, > >Barry Skeenes >Technical Writer >AMERICAN REGISTRY FOR INTERNET NUMBERS >bskeenes at arin.net >703-227-9854 From richardj at arin.net Wed Feb 28 02:59:05 2001 From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 02:59:05 -0500 Subject: Request for CLEW Input In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000b01c0a15c$52d30c40$f18dbaca@jaring.my> Hello Howard, > In one of my presentations to NANOG last week, the vast majority of > questions related to obtaining and justifying address space. In > particular, North American ISPs complained about how their requests > for their customers to justify assignments and usage were resented, One of our duties as a RIR is to ensure the IP address space we allocate is justified and that it is efficiently utilized. This is the practice of all three RIRs. > and how competitors' sales people often used that as a wedge "we'll > give you a /24, or whatever, if you change your service to us. We > won't hassle you with all the paperwork the incumbent is demanding." ARIN has no control over the tactics that may be used by the sales forces of some ISPs, but we do ensure requests submitted to ARIN for IP address space are all reviewed in an equal manner. If an ISP has deployed a sales tactic like this it should show up during their review for additional IP address space from ARIN. > This seems to be far less of a problem in Europe, and I'm beginning > to think the RIPE NCC model of LIR's (as distinct from generic > members) is part of the solution. A LIR can present itself as a > steward of address space, much as a CPA or physician is expected to > exercise independent professional integrity. I believe there is no difference between an ISP who is a member in the ARIN region and a LIR in the RIPE NCC who is a member in regard to stewardship of IP address space. -Richard Jimmerson > -----Original Message----- > From: clew-request at arin.net [mailto:clew-request at arin.net]On Behalf Of > Howard C. Berkowitz > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 12:26 AM > To: clew at arin.net > Subject: Re: Request for CLEW Input > > > In one of my presentations to NANOG last week, the vast majority of > questions related to obtaining and justifying address space. In > particular, North American ISPs complained about how their requests > for their customers to justify assignments and usage were resented, > and how competitors' sales people often used that as a wedge "we'll > give you a /24, or whatever, if you change your service to us. We > won't hassle you with all the paperwork the incumbent is demanding." > > This seems to be far less of a problem in Europe, and I'm beginning > to think the RIPE NCC model of LIR's (as distinct from generic > members) is part of the solution. A LIR can present itself as a > steward of address space, much as a CPA or physician is expected to > exercise independent professional integrity. > > Frankly, I'm becoming less and less clear why someone becomes an ARIN > member other than generically supporting part of the Internet > structure. There's much more justification to become a RIPE LIR. > > > > > Member Services is discussing what kind of increased > benefits ARIN can > >> offer its Members. One consideration is the reinstatement of a > >> Members-only website for providing news, training and > other items of > >> interest to the Members. > >> > >> What content would you like to see on this site? Be > specific please. Are > >> there items you would take off the public site and make > available for use > >> only by Members? A dynamic website could be useful not > only to current > >> Members, but also for bringing new entities into ARIN's > membership. > >> > >> Please consider this matter and send suggestions to the > CLEW list in > >> preparation for the upcoming Members Meeting. > >> > >Regards, > > > >Barry Skeenes > >Technical Writer > >AMERICAN REGISTRY FOR INTERNET NUMBERS > >bskeenes at arin.net > >703-227-9854 From mir at ripe.net Wed Feb 28 03:52:20 2001 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:52:20 +0100 Subject: Request for CLEW Input In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 28 Feb 2001 00:26:14 EST. Message-ID: <200102280852.JAA10374@kantoor.ripe.net> Dear Howard, Let me clarify the role and responsibilities of an LIR in the RIPE NCC service region. In order to receive registration services from the RIPE NCC an organisation has to become a member. Once a member has received an allocation from the RIPE NCC it takes over the role of an LIR. This LIR is then responsibe for the address space allodated to it. Every new LIR gets a so called assignment window (AW) of 0. That means that the LIR needs to send all assignemnt requests to the RIPE NCC for approval *before* the assignment is made. Once the LIR is more familiar with the administrative procedures and more experienced with assignment policies, the AW and therefor the LIR's responsibilities are increased. All assignment requests that are outside the AW still need to be sent to the RIPE NCC for approval. When the LIR then comes back to the RIPE NCC for additional address space, the RIPE NCC reviews the previously allocated address space. At all times the LIR remains responsible for the address space it got allocated by the RIPE NCC also in cases where it makes sub-allocations to downstream ISPs. The RIRs may have different membership models. However, I agree with Richard in that the duties of the members are the same globally, i.e. to ensure a responsible stewardship of IP address space. Kind Regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC "Howard C. Berkowitz" writes: * In one of my presentations to NANOG last week, the vast majority of * questions related to obtaining and justifying address space. In * particular, North American ISPs complained about how their requests * for their customers to justify assignments and usage were resented, * and how competitors' sales people often used that as a wedge "we'll * give you a /24, or whatever, if you change your service to us. We * won't hassle you with all the paperwork the incumbent is demanding." * * This seems to be far less of a problem in Europe, and I'm beginning * to think the RIPE NCC model of LIR's (as distinct from generic * members) is part of the solution. A LIR can present itself as a * steward of address space, much as a CPA or physician is expected to * exercise independent professional integrity. * * Frankly, I'm becoming less and less clear why someone becomes an ARIN * member other than generically supporting part of the Internet * structure. There's much more justification to become a RIPE LIR. * * * > > Member Services is discussing what kind of increased benefits ARIN can * >> offer its Members. One consideration is the reinstatement of a * >> Members-only website for providing news, training and other items of * >> interest to the Members. * >> * >> What content would you like to see on this site? Be specific please. * Are * >> there items you would take off the public site and make available for u * se * >> only by Members? A dynamic website could be useful not only to current * >> Members, but also for bringing new entities into ARIN's membership. * >> * >> Please consider this matter and send suggestions to the CLEW list in * >> preparation for the upcoming Members Meeting. * >> * >Regards, * > * >Barry Skeenes * >Technical Writer * >AMERICAN REGISTRY FOR INTERNET NUMBERS * >bskeenes at arin.net * >703-227-9854 * * From jfleming at anet.com Wed Feb 28 08:55:23 2001 From: jfleming at anet.com (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:55:23 -0600 Subject: Request for CLEW Input In-Reply-To: <200102280852.JAA10374@kantoor.ripe.net> Message-ID: IPv8 Address Space is Free...just like Linux and FreeBSD... http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp Jim Fleming http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif -----Original Message----- From: clew-request at arin.net [mailto:clew-request at arin.net]On Behalf Of Mirjam Kuehne Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 2:52 AM To: Howard C. Berkowitz Cc: clew at arin.net Subject: Re: Request for CLEW Input Dear Howard, Let me clarify the role and responsibilities of an LIR in the RIPE NCC service region. In order to receive registration services from the RIPE NCC an organisation has to become a member. Once a member has received an allocation from the RIPE NCC it takes over the role of an LIR. This LIR is then responsibe for the address space allodated to it. Every new LIR gets a so called assignment window (AW) of 0. That means that the LIR needs to send all assignemnt requests to the RIPE NCC for approval *before* the assignment is made. Once the LIR is more familiar with the administrative procedures and more experienced with assignment policies, the AW and therefor the LIR's responsibilities are increased. All assignment requests that are outside the AW still need to be sent to the RIPE NCC for approval. When the LIR then comes back to the RIPE NCC for additional address space, the RIPE NCC reviews the previously allocated address space. At all times the LIR remains responsible for the address space it got allocated by the RIPE NCC also in cases where it makes sub-allocations to downstream ISPs. The RIRs may have different membership models. However, I agree with Richard in that the duties of the members are the same globally, i.e. to ensure a responsible stewardship of IP address space. Kind Regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC "Howard C. Berkowitz" writes: * In one of my presentations to NANOG last week, the vast majority of * questions related to obtaining and justifying address space. In * particular, North American ISPs complained about how their requests * for their customers to justify assignments and usage were resented, * and how competitors' sales people often used that as a wedge "we'll * give you a /24, or whatever, if you change your service to us. We * won't hassle you with all the paperwork the incumbent is demanding." * * This seems to be far less of a problem in Europe, and I'm beginning * to think the RIPE NCC model of LIR's (as distinct from generic * members) is part of the solution. A LIR can present itself as a * steward of address space, much as a CPA or physician is expected to * exercise independent professional integrity. * * Frankly, I'm becoming less and less clear why someone becomes an ARIN * member other than generically supporting part of the Internet * structure. There's much more justification to become a RIPE LIR. * * * > > Member Services is discussing what kind of increased benefits ARIN can * >> offer its Members. One consideration is the reinstatement of a * >> Members-only website for providing news, training and other items of * >> interest to the Members. * >> * >> What content would you like to see on this site? Be specific please. * Are * >> there items you would take off the public site and make available for u * se * >> only by Members? A dynamic website could be useful not only to current * >> Members, but also for bringing new entities into ARIN's membership. * >> * >> Please consider this matter and send suggestions to the CLEW list in * >> preparation for the upcoming Members Meeting. * >> * >Regards, * > * >Barry Skeenes * >Technical Writer * >AMERICAN REGISTRY FOR INTERNET NUMBERS * >bskeenes at arin.net * >703-227-9854 * * From jfleming at anet.com Wed Feb 28 09:01:11 2001 From: jfleming at anet.com (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:01:11 -0600 Subject: Request for CLEW Input In-Reply-To: <000b01c0a15c$52d30c40$f18dbaca@jaring.my> Message-ID: Have you ever been a "customer" of ARIN ? Jim Fleming http://www.unir.com http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif -----Original Message----- From: clew-request at arin.net [mailto:clew-request at arin.net]On Behalf Of Richard Jimmerson Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 1:59 AM To: 'Howard C. Berkowitz'; clew at arin.net Subject: RE: Request for CLEW Input Hello Howard, > In one of my presentations to NANOG last week, the vast majority of > questions related to obtaining and justifying address space. In > particular, North American ISPs complained about how their requests > for their customers to justify assignments and usage were resented, One of our duties as a RIR is to ensure the IP address space we allocate is justified and that it is efficiently utilized. This is the practice of all three RIRs. > and how competitors' sales people often used that as a wedge "we'll > give you a /24, or whatever, if you change your service to us. We > won't hassle you with all the paperwork the incumbent is demanding." ARIN has no control over the tactics that may be used by the sales forces of some ISPs, but we do ensure requests submitted to ARIN for IP address space are all reviewed in an equal manner. If an ISP has deployed a sales tactic like this it should show up during their review for additional IP address space from ARIN. > This seems to be far less of a problem in Europe, and I'm beginning > to think the RIPE NCC model of LIR's (as distinct from generic > members) is part of the solution. A LIR can present itself as a > steward of address space, much as a CPA or physician is expected to > exercise independent professional integrity. I believe there is no difference between an ISP who is a member in the ARIN region and a LIR in the RIPE NCC who is a member in regard to stewardship of IP address space. -Richard Jimmerson > -----Original Message----- > From: clew-request at arin.net [mailto:clew-request at arin.net]On Behalf Of > Howard C. Berkowitz > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 12:26 AM > To: clew at arin.net > Subject: Re: Request for CLEW Input > > > In one of my presentations to NANOG last week, the vast majority of > questions related to obtaining and justifying address space. In > particular, North American ISPs complained about how their requests > for their customers to justify assignments and usage were resented, > and how competitors' sales people often used that as a wedge "we'll > give you a /24, or whatever, if you change your service to us. We > won't hassle you with all the paperwork the incumbent is demanding." > > This seems to be far less of a problem in Europe, and I'm beginning > to think the RIPE NCC model of LIR's (as distinct from generic > members) is part of the solution. A LIR can present itself as a > steward of address space, much as a CPA or physician is expected to > exercise independent professional integrity. > > Frankly, I'm becoming less and less clear why someone becomes an ARIN > member other than generically supporting part of the Internet > structure. There's much more justification to become a RIPE LIR. > > > > > Member Services is discussing what kind of increased > benefits ARIN can > >> offer its Members. One consideration is the reinstatement of a > >> Members-only website for providing news, training and > other items of > >> interest to the Members. > >> > >> What content would you like to see on this site? Be > specific please. Are > >> there items you would take off the public site and make > available for use > >> only by Members? A dynamic website could be useful not > only to current > >> Members, but also for bringing new entities into ARIN's > membership. > >> > >> Please consider this matter and send suggestions to the > CLEW list in > >> preparation for the upcoming Members Meeting. > >> > >Regards, > > > >Barry Skeenes > >Technical Writer > >AMERICAN REGISTRY FOR INTERNET NUMBERS > >bskeenes at arin.net > >703-227-9854 From hcb at clark.net Wed Feb 28 09:33:09 2001 From: hcb at clark.net (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:33:09 -0500 Subject: Request for CLEW Input In-Reply-To: <200102280852.JAA10374@kantoor.ripe.net> References: <200102280852.JAA10374@kantoor.ripe.net> Message-ID: At 9:52 AM +0100 2/28/01, Mirjam Kuehne wrote: >Dear Howard, > >Let me clarify the role and responsibilities of an LIR in the RIPE NCC >service region. > >In order to receive registration services from the RIPE NCC an >organisation has to become a member. Once a member has received an >allocation from the RIPE NCC it takes over the role of an LIR. This >LIR is then responsibe for the address space allodated to it. > >Every new LIR gets a so called assignment window (AW) of 0. That means >that the LIR needs to send all assignemnt requests to the RIPE NCC for >approval *before* the assignment is made. Once the LIR is more >familiar with the administrative procedures and more experienced with >assignment policies, the AW and therefor the LIR's responsibilities >are increased. All assignment requests that are outside the AW still >need to be sent to the RIPE NCC for approval. Understood. And the point I'm making is that the LIR can bring the assignment window rules to the customer, essentially to say "I'm not making this requirement up to be difficult." IMHO, there is a problem that there are no clear-cut external rules, in ARIN-land, that can be presented to a particularly demanding ISP customer, both to justify why the ISP is asking for justification, and to demonstrate that a competitor that is offering "whatever you want" will NOT be able to meet their long-term requirements. Those of us who understand that ARIN has the same stewardship requirement have the benefit of years on mailing lists, of knowing RFC 2050 and its ancestry, etc. I don't pretend to suggest that the LIR model is the ideal, but having more externally visible yet verifiable controls on ISPs in the ARIN model is a short-term approach to the broader problem of customer education. > >When the LIR then comes back to the RIPE NCC for additional address >space, the RIPE NCC reviews the previously allocated address space. > >At all times the LIR remains responsible for the address space it got >allocated by the RIPE NCC also in cases where it makes sub-allocations >to downstream ISPs. Precisely. And the fact that RIPE NCC enforces stewardship requirements on LIRs can readily be demonstrated. It is harder for an ISP that receives an allocation from ARIN to demonstrate to its customer that it is not a free agent in handing out requests in response to customer demand, or that the address pool is simply driven by the free market, with address space available to whoever wants to pay for it, with or without justification. > >The RIRs may have different membership models. However, I agree with >Richard in that the duties of the members are the same globally, >i.e. to ensure a responsible stewardship of IP address space. > >Kind Regards, >Mirjam Kuehne >RIPE NCC > > "Howard C. Berkowitz" writes: > * In one of my presentations to NANOG last week, the vast majority of > * questions related to obtaining and justifying address space. In > * particular, North American ISPs complained about how their requests > * for their customers to justify assignments and usage were resented, > * and how competitors' sales people often used that as a wedge "we'll > * give you a /24, or whatever, if you change your service to us. We > * won't hassle you with all the paperwork the incumbent is demanding." > * > * This seems to be far less of a problem in Europe, and I'm beginning > * to think the RIPE NCC model of LIR's (as distinct from generic > * members) is part of the solution. A LIR can present itself as a > * steward of address space, much as a CPA or physician is expected to > * exercise independent professional integrity. > * > * Frankly, I'm becoming less and less clear why someone becomes an ARIN > * member other than generically supporting part of the Internet > * structure. There's much more justification to become a RIPE LIR. > * > * > * > > Member Services is discussing what kind of increased >benefits ARIN can > * >> offer its Members. One consideration is the reinstatement of a > * >> Members-only website for providing news, training and other items of > * >> interest to the Members. > * >> > * >> What content would you like to see on this site? Be specific please. > * Are > * >> there items you would take off the public site and make >available for u > * se > * >> only by Members? A dynamic website could be useful not only to current > * >> Members, but also for bringing new entities into ARIN's membership. > * >> > * >> Please consider this matter and send suggestions to the CLEW list in > * >> preparation for the upcoming Members Meeting. > * >> > * >Regards, > * > > * >Barry Skeenes > * >Technical Writer > * >AMERICAN REGISTRY FOR INTERNET NUMBERS > * >bskeenes at arin.net > * >703-227-9854 > * > * From hcb at clark.net Wed Feb 28 09:39:35 2001 From: hcb at clark.net (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:39:35 -0500 Subject: Request for CLEW Input In-Reply-To: <000b01c0a15c$52d30c40$f18dbaca@jaring.my> References: <000b01c0a15c$52d30c40$f18dbaca@jaring.my> Message-ID: >Hello Howard, > >> In one of my presentations to NANOG last week, the vast majority of >> questions related to obtaining and justifying address space. In >> particular, North American ISPs complained about how their requests >> for their customers to justify assignments and usage were resented, > >One of our duties as a RIR is to ensure the IP address space we >allocate is justified and that it is efficiently utilized. This >is the practice of all three RIRs. > >> and how competitors' sales people often used that as a wedge "we'll >> give you a /24, or whatever, if you change your service to us. We >> won't hassle you with all the paperwork the incumbent is demanding." > >ARIN has no control over the tactics that may be used by the sales >forces of some ISPs, but we do ensure requests submitted to ARIN for >IP address space are all reviewed in an equal manner. If an ISP has >deployed a sales tactic like this it should show up during their >review for additional IP address space from ARIN. I agree, Richard. This is the way it should work. But right now, there isn't any good way for the ISP playing nicely to show independent, readable documentation to his customer to say that the ISP _can't_ make a practice of just handing out address space. If you, as a provider, do tell some customers that inappropriate assignments will show up in their future reviews, you are apt to get a response of "so what? I need address space now. It's your problem in the future; handle it." I've run across enterprises that have a mentality of "if you have space in your allocation, give it to us NOW if you want our business." And we have sales people that will do just that, because the next review period is later than the next computation of their sales commissions. > >> This seems to be far less of a problem in Europe, and I'm beginning >> to think the RIPE NCC model of LIR's (as distinct from generic >> members) is part of the solution. A LIR can present itself as a >> steward of address space, much as a CPA or physician is expected to >> exercise independent professional integrity. > >I believe there is no difference between an ISP who is a member >in the ARIN region and a LIR in the RIPE NCC who is a member in >regard to stewardship of IP address space. From a process design standpoint, I am in complete agreement. From a customer perception standpoint, I don't think the information to justify this is in the minds of the end users. The problem isn't with the ARIN staff. Indeed, there is, I believe a fair bit of unjustified hostility toward ARIN, when direct allocation requests (or additional allocation requests) are denied due to inadequate justification. From lhoward at uu.net Wed Feb 28 10:10:08 2001 From: lhoward at uu.net (Lee Howard) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:10:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: Request for CLEW Input In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:39:35 -0500 > From: Howard C. Berkowitz > To: richardj at arin.net > Cc: clew at arin.net > Subject: RE: Request for CLEW Input > > >Hello Howard, > > > >ARIN has no control over the tactics that may be used by the sales > >forces of some ISPs, but we do ensure requests submitted to ARIN for > >IP address space are all reviewed in an equal manner. If an ISP has > >deployed a sales tactic like this it should show up during their > >review for additional IP address space from ARIN. If the ISP in question applies for additional space from ARIN. I keep hearing that a couple have old class A's they haven't used up. > in the future; handle it." I've run across enterprises that have a > mentality of "if you have space in your allocation, give it to us NOW > if you want our business." And we have sales people that will do > just that, because the next review period is later than the next > computation of their sales commissions. If sales included an allocation clause in the contract, I would refer it to my legal department. We would have mutually exclusive contracts, one with ARIN, and one with the customer. Since the contract with ARIN is critical to continuing to do business, that one wins, in my humble and not legally-trained opinion. I would think it's cheaper to settle for breach of contract on one customer than jeopardize all future business. > The problem isn't with the ARIN staff. Indeed, there is, I believe a > fair bit of unjustified hostility toward ARIN, when direct allocation > requests (or additional allocation requests) are denied due to > inadequate justification. We get customers applying to us for large blocks of address space that ARIN has already denied. My experience is that we reinforce each other when we say, "We'll be happy to work with you on this application, but we require approval from ARIN before actually allocating space." Our consistency with ARIN legitimizes both us and ARIN. If someone refuses to do business with us because we won't break the rules for them, that's business I don't want anyway. Lee From kimh at arin.net Wed Feb 28 07:51:24 2001 From: kimh at arin.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:51:24 -0500 Subject: Request for CLEW Input References: <000b01c0a15c$52d30c40$f18dbaca@jaring.my> Message-ID: <002b01c0a185$29c87820$ccfc95c0@arin.net> Howard, You are absolutely right that there needs to be more documentation for ISPs to share with their customers regarding IP allocation policy. There is plenty of documentation from the RIR to ISP perspective but very little that helps the end-user. This was one of the initial goals of CLEW when it was first created. I believe that any documentation of this kind must include the involvement of some ARIN member ISPs. Perhaps one goal of the CLEW WG meeting could be to create a committee made up of a few ISPs and ARIN staff to begin working on this very important project. Kim ----- Original Message ----- From: Howard C. Berkowitz To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 9:39 AM Subject: RE: Request for CLEW Input > >Hello Howard, > > > >> In one of my presentations to NANOG last week, the vast majority of > >> questions related to obtaining and justifying address space. In > >> particular, North American ISPs complained about how their requests > >> for their customers to justify assignments and usage were resented, > > > >One of our duties as a RIR is to ensure the IP address space we > >allocate is justified and that it is efficiently utilized. This > >is the practice of all three RIRs. > > > >> and how competitors' sales people often used that as a wedge "we'll > >> give you a /24, or whatever, if you change your service to us. We > >> won't hassle you with all the paperwork the incumbent is demanding." > > > >ARIN has no control over the tactics that may be used by the sales > >forces of some ISPs, but we do ensure requests submitted to ARIN for > >IP address space are all reviewed in an equal manner. If an ISP has > >deployed a sales tactic like this it should show up during their > >review for additional IP address space from ARIN. > > > I agree, Richard. This is the way it should work. But right now, > there isn't any good way for the ISP playing nicely to show > independent, readable documentation to his customer to say that the > ISP _can't_ make a practice of just handing out address space. > > If you, as a provider, do tell some customers that inappropriate > assignments will show up in their future reviews, you are apt to get > a response of "so what? I need address space now. It's your problem > in the future; handle it." I've run across enterprises that have a > mentality of "if you have space in your allocation, give it to us NOW > if you want our business." And we have sales people that will do > just that, because the next review period is later than the next > computation of their sales commissions. > > > > >> This seems to be far less of a problem in Europe, and I'm beginning > >> to think the RIPE NCC model of LIR's (as distinct from generic > >> members) is part of the solution. A LIR can present itself as a > >> steward of address space, much as a CPA or physician is expected to > >> exercise independent professional integrity. > > > >I believe there is no difference between an ISP who is a member > >in the ARIN region and a LIR in the RIPE NCC who is a member in > >regard to stewardship of IP address space. > > From a process design standpoint, I am in complete agreement. From a > customer perception standpoint, I don't think the information to > justify this is in the minds of the end users. > > The problem isn't with the ARIN staff. Indeed, there is, I believe a > fair bit of unjustified hostility toward ARIN, when direct allocation > requests (or additional allocation requests) are denied due to > inadequate justification. > From kimh at arin.net Wed Feb 28 07:51:52 2001 From: kimh at arin.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:51:52 -0500 Subject: Request for CLEW Input References: <000b01c0a15c$52d30c40$f18dbaca@jaring.my> Message-ID: <002c01c0a185$3a8b3da0$ccfc95c0@arin.net> Howard, You are absolutely right that there needs to be more documentation for ISPs to share with their customers regarding IP allocation policy. There is plenty of documentation from the RIR to ISP perspective but very little that helps the end-user. This was one of the initial goals of CLEW when it was first created. I believe that any documentation of this kind must include the involvement of some ARIN member ISPs. Perhaps one goal of the CLEW WG meeting could be to create a committee made up of a few ISPs and ARIN staff to begin working on this very important project. Regards, Kim Hubbard ----- Original Message ----- From: Howard C. Berkowitz To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 9:39 AM Subject: RE: Request for CLEW Input > >Hello Howard, > > > >> In one of my presentations to NANOG last week, the vast majority of > >> questions related to obtaining and justifying address space. In > >> particular, North American ISPs complained about how their requests > >> for their customers to justify assignments and usage were resented, > > > >One of our duties as a RIR is to ensure the IP address space we > >allocate is justified and that it is efficiently utilized. This > >is the practice of all three RIRs. > > > >> and how competitors' sales people often used that as a wedge "we'll > >> give you a /24, or whatever, if you change your service to us. We > >> won't hassle you with all the paperwork the incumbent is demanding." > > > >ARIN has no control over the tactics that may be used by the sales > >forces of some ISPs, but we do ensure requests submitted to ARIN for > >IP address space are all reviewed in an equal manner. If an ISP has > >deployed a sales tactic like this it should show up during their > >review for additional IP address space from ARIN. > > > I agree, Richard. This is the way it should work. But right now, > there isn't any good way for the ISP playing nicely to show > independent, readable documentation to his customer to say that the > ISP _can't_ make a practice of just handing out address space. > > If you, as a provider, do tell some customers that inappropriate > assignments will show up in their future reviews, you are apt to get > a response of "so what? I need address space now. It's your problem > in the future; handle it." I've run across enterprises that have a > mentality of "if you have space in your allocation, give it to us NOW > if you want our business." And we have sales people that will do > just that, because the next review period is later than the next > computation of their sales commissions. > > > > >> This seems to be far less of a problem in Europe, and I'm beginning > >> to think the RIPE NCC model of LIR's (as distinct from generic > >> members) is part of the solution. A LIR can present itself as a > >> steward of address space, much as a CPA or physician is expected to > >> exercise independent professional integrity. > > > >I believe there is no difference between an ISP who is a member > >in the ARIN region and a LIR in the RIPE NCC who is a member in > >regard to stewardship of IP address space. > > From a process design standpoint, I am in complete agreement. From a > customer perception standpoint, I don't think the information to > justify this is in the minds of the end users. > > The problem isn't with the ARIN staff. Indeed, there is, I believe a > fair bit of unjustified hostility toward ARIN, when direct allocation > requests (or additional allocation requests) are denied due to > inadequate justification. > From hcb at clark.net Wed Feb 28 10:26:10 2001 From: hcb at clark.net (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:26:10 -0500 Subject: Request for CLEW Input In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > >> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:39:35 -0500 >> From: Howard C. Berkowitz >> To: richardj at arin.net >> Cc: clew at arin.net >> Subject: RE: Request for CLEW Input >> >> >Hello Howard, > > > > > >ARIN has no control over the tactics that may be used by the sales >> >forces of some ISPs, but we do ensure requests submitted to ARIN for >> >IP address space are all reviewed in an equal manner. If an ISP has >> >deployed a sales tactic like this it should show up during their >> >review for additional IP address space from ARIN. > >If the ISP in question applies for additional space from ARIN. I keep >hearing that a couple have old class A's they haven't used up. True, and there are still class A's out there tied up in enterprises that don't expose a fraction of them to the outside. > >> in the future; handle it." I've run across enterprises that have a >> mentality of "if you have space in your allocation, give it to us NOW >> if you want our business." And we have sales people that will do >> just that, because the next review period is later than the next >> computation of their sales commissions. > >If sales included an allocation clause in the contract, I would refer >it to my legal department. We would have mutually exclusive contracts, >one with ARIN, and one with the customer. Since the contract with ARIN >is critical to continuing to do business, that one wins, in my humble >and not legally-trained opinion. I would think it's cheaper to settle >for breach of contract on one customer than jeopardize all future >business. Some of the problem certainly comes from not having allocation clauses in any contract, but simply getting verbal sales approval and having sales in a position to give orders to operations. I agree completely with your analysis, but my impression is that there are people out there who aren't acting as formally. Some of the points you raise, incidentally, would be excellent educational guidance to ISPs and customers if put into an ARIN document. > >> The problem isn't with the ARIN staff. Indeed, there is, I believe a >> fair bit of unjustified hostility toward ARIN, when direct allocation >> requests (or additional allocation requests) are denied due to >> inadequate justification. > >We get customers applying to us for large blocks of address space that >ARIN has already denied. My experience is that we reinforce each other >when we say, "We'll be happy to work with you on this application, but >we require approval from ARIN before actually allocating space." Our >consistency with ARIN legitimizes both us and ARIN. Again, that's the way it should be. > >If someone refuses to do business with us because we won't break the >rules for them, that's business I don't want anyway. > >Lee I wish people said that more often. Unfortunately, there are a lot of quick-buck people in the industry, and customers with a whim of iron. From susanh at arin.net Wed Feb 28 13:19:20 2001 From: susanh at arin.net (Susan Hamlin) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:19:20 -0500 Subject: Educating ISP customers Message-ID: > Please refer to this subject thread, archived on the CLEW mailing list: > http://www.arin.net/mailinglists/clew/0026.html > > CLEW Chairman Bill Darte provided a draft outline for a document that ISPs > could use to educate their customers about IP address issues. This > generated some limited discussion on the list. > > ARIN Member Services staff recently discussed this project, assigning it > top priority from among the items CLEW discussed in October (see CLEW > minutes: http://www.arin.net/minutes/wg/clew10032000.html ). ARIN > technical writer Barry Skeenes will soon post a revised table of contents > to the list for comment. > > Kim's suggestion that a CLEW subcommittee be formed to work on the > document is an excellent idea. I am certain that Bill will summarize the > discussion topics during the CLEW session in San Francisco, and will call > for volunteers to help with the task. > NOTE: Within ARIN's "ISP Guidelines for Requesting Initial IP Address Space" (http://www.arin.net/regserv/initial-isp.html), two subsections, entitled "Providing Reassignment Information" and "Reassigning Address Space to Customers," address the subject issue and should be referenced when a downstream customer seeks advice about reassignment utilization from their upstream ISP. Susan Hamlin Director, Member Services -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 2468 bytes Desc: not available URL: From scowby at yahoo.com Wed Feb 28 16:19:51 2001 From: scowby at yahoo.com (David Boardman) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:19:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: curiosity Message-ID: <20010228211951.58609.qmail@web11808.mail.yahoo.com> Hi all - I'm joining this group to try and educate myself about a couple confusions I have about the IPv4 address allocations in existence today. I'm kinda confused as to how the RIR's coordinate ownership of IP networks falling into the 128/8 through the 192/8 networks, and others designated as being the responsibility of "various registries." The most informational document I have only states that "various registries" are in charge. However, if I query the whois databases available at ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC they all give me, seemingly, different records for certain allocations. One example is 208.141.102.0. Who is, ultimately, in charge of this allocation?? And, is this information available in some document somewhere? Any links/FAQ's/documents someone could point me toward would be great! Thanks, Dave __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ From jfleming at anet.com Wed Feb 28 21:13:20 2001 From: jfleming at anet.com (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 20:13:20 -0600 Subject: curiosity In-Reply-To: <20010228211951.58609.qmail@web11808.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/ipv4-address-space -----Original Message----- From: owner-clew at arin.net [mailto:owner-clew at arin.net]On Behalf Of David Boardman Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 3:20 PM To: clew at arin.net Subject: curiosity Hi all - I'm joining this group to try and educate myself about a couple confusions I have about the IPv4 address allocations in existence today. I'm kinda confused as to how the RIR's coordinate ownership of IP networks falling into the 128/8 through the 192/8 networks, and others designated as being the responsibility of "various registries." The most informational document I have only states that "various registries" are in charge. However, if I query the whois databases available at ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC they all give me, seemingly, different records for certain allocations. One example is 208.141.102.0. Who is, ultimately, in charge of this allocation?? And, is this information available in some document somewhere? Any links/FAQ's/documents someone could point me toward would be great! Thanks, Dave __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ From richardj at arin.net Wed Feb 28 21:38:08 2001 From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 21:38:08 -0500 Subject: curiosity In-Reply-To: <20010228211951.58609.qmail@web11808.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003201c0a1f8$a7781500$f18dbaca@jaring.my> Hello David, > I'm kinda confused as to how the RIR's coordinate > ownership of IP networks falling into the 128/8 > through the 192/8 networks, and others designated as > being the responsibility of "various registries." Networks from these /8s are registered to organizations spread out across the globe. The majority of these registrations currently reside the ARIN database. There may be instances where the registration is listed in two Regional Internet Registry (RIR) databases, however. In these cases the registration information should be the same. When it is found this is not the case, the RIRs work together to correct any discrepancies. The case pointed out in your message is now being discussed among the RIRs. For historical reasons there are many early registrations in the ARIN database associated with organizations who geographically fall under the responsibility of another RIR. The three RIRs are currently working together on a project to move these early registrations to the appropriate RIR database. It is expected this project will be completed during 2001. Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-clew at arin.net [mailto:owner-clew at arin.net]On > Behalf Of David > Boardman > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 4:20 PM > To: clew at arin.net > Subject: curiosity > > > Hi all - I'm joining this group to try and educate > myself about a couple confusions I have about the IPv4 > address allocations in existence today. > > I'm kinda confused as to how the RIR's coordinate > ownership of IP networks falling into the 128/8 > through the 192/8 networks, and others designated as > being the responsibility of "various registries." > > The most informational document I have only states > that "various registries" are in charge. However, if > I query the whois databases available at ARIN, RIPE, > and APNIC they all give me, seemingly, different > records for certain allocations. One example is > 208.141.102.0. Who is, ultimately, in charge of this > allocation?? And, is this information available in > some document somewhere? Any links/FAQ's/documents > someone could point me toward would be great! > > Thanks, > Dave > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/