From memsvcs at arin.net Wed Sep 4 10:34:21 2002 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 10:34:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: ARIN X Meeting Registration Now Available Message-ID: Registration is now open for the ARIN X Public Policy and Members meetings to be held in Eugene, Oregon beginning Wednesday, October 30 through noon on Friday, November 1. For the first time, the ARIN fall meeting is being held immediately following NANOG, so be certain to take advantage of the joint location and register for both meetings. The ARIN X meeting home page is available at: http://www.arin.net/ARIN-X/index.html >From here you can proceed to an online registration form, find hotel information, and the meeting agenda. Check out the sponsorship link for exciting opportunities still available. Add your company logo to the list of sponsors! ARIN thanks the following meeting sponsors: Sprint and the University of Oregon for all network related activities throughout the ARIN meeting and Preferred Communications Inc., NW for the Thursday breakfast. Be sure to visit the ARIN X web page later this month and leading up to the meeting for specific agenda items. If you have any questions regarding ARIN X, please contact memsvcs at arin.net or call 703-227-9878. We look forward to seeing you in Eugene. ARIN Member Services From Jill.Kulpinski at exodus.net Wed Sep 4 17:07:25 2002 From: Jill.Kulpinski at exodus.net (Jill Kulpinski) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 14:07:25 -0700 Subject: Being blacklisted by Spews Message-ID: Hello, What do other ISPs in the community do if they have Customers who get the ISPs address space blacklisted by spews? Thanks very much, Jill Kulpinski From easmith at beatrice.rutgers.edu Wed Sep 4 17:35:02 2002 From: easmith at beatrice.rutgers.edu (Allen Smith) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:35:02 -0400 Subject: Being blacklisted by Spews In-Reply-To: "Jill Kulpinski" "Being blacklisted by Spews" (Sep 4, 5:23pm) References: Message-ID: <10209041735.ZM1337994@puck2.rutgers.edu> On Sep 4, 5:23pm, Jill Kulpinski wrote: > Hello, > What do other ISPs in the community do if they have Customers who get the > ISPs address space blacklisted by spews? Are you meaning: A. You got IP address space that someone else's customers had abused, resulting in a SPEWS listing? In this case, announce this fact loudly but _politely_ on news.admin.net.abuse.email, which the SPEWS maintainers are known to follow - they _will_ remove the IP addresses from the list, unless the ISP acquiring the IPs has been misbehaving; or B. Your customers have caused a blacklisting? In this case, dump the customers as publically as possible, announce _why_ this was done (not blaming SPEWS for blacklisting, but blaming the customers for their abuse of said IP addresses), and consider suing said customers for causing you (and your other customers) problems by their misbehavior. Actions other than this are just going to get you blacklisted by more and more people. -Allen P.S. In the first case, the registry making the IP address reassignment might want to consider using a different set of IP addresses, if possible, for immediate reassigment, make it known that the old IP address range is no longer under the control of the ISP in question, and after this information has been adequately disseminated _then_ release those IP addresses back into the general "pool". -- Allen Smith http://cesario.rutgers.edu/easmith/ September 11, 2001 A Day That Shall Live In Infamy II "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin From asr at latency.net Wed Sep 4 18:53:24 2002 From: asr at latency.net (Adam Rothschild) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 18:53:24 -0400 Subject: Being blacklisted by Spews In-Reply-To: ; from Jill.Kulpinski@exodus.net on Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 02:07:25PM -0700 References: Message-ID: <20020904185324.A91429@latency.net> On 2002-09-04-17:07:25, Jill Kulpinski wrote: > What do other ISPs in the community do if they have Customers who > get the ISPs address space blacklisted by spews? Was your customer, indeed, spamming, or were they put there due to some misguided agenda of the SPEWS maintainers? In the case of the former, you terminate their account, and post to NANAE with proof of such. The latter's a bit trickier, and may require you not allocate the IP space to future customers until it's removed from the blackhole list. Of course, I can't help but wonder if there's any correlation between Exodus/C&W employees spamming customers trying to interest them in MLM scams, and Exodus IP space getting blackholed by SPEWS... -a ----- Forwarded message from jill.kulpinski at exodus.net ----- Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 19:39:30 From: jill.kulpinski at exodus.net Subject: Free Service To: jill.kulpinski at exodus.net X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 FREE Service We find "home-based- business opportunities for you at no cost. How can we do this? We are paid by our client companies to seek ambitious people such as yourself. We represent only the finest, most reputable companies that provide not only a lucrative commission base but also that all-important residule income so necessary to reach your goals. To obtain more information and start on your road to success and wealth, Call 1-877-248-1145 or email go21 at eudoramail.com To your success. New Business International ----- End forwarded message ----- From Jill.Kulpinski at exodus.net Wed Sep 4 20:21:16 2002 From: Jill.Kulpinski at exodus.net (Jill Kulpinski) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:21:16 -0700 Subject: Being blacklisted by Spews Message-ID: Hello Hansel and all, Thanks for your comment and just to clarify, I am not speaking with regards to Exodus or any specific ISP. This is a general question that I wanted to raise to the community for feedback. It is interesting because a lot of the feedback is saying that the ISP would just disconnect the Customer. What if the Customer was sending a lot of mail from an address because they provided newsletter distribution services? Jill -----Original Message----- From: Hansel E. Lee Jr. Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 2:30 PM To: Jill Kulpinski Subject: RE: Being blacklisted by Spews Terminate customers who violate our AUP. We terminate customers on the first SPAM complaint and have never had any IP address/block ever listed in SPEWS or any other blacklist. Once you terminate the Spammers you'll over time fall off the blacklists. Note that Exodus is listed quite frequently in: news.admin.net-abuse.email which is often how folks get into SPEWS. http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&newwindow=1&q=ex odus&btnG=Google+Search&meta=group%3Dnews.admin.net-abuse.email Would be nice if Exodus started to crack down on spammers. It is a bad business practice to host them and ultimately will drive away your legitimate customers. Hansel E. Lee Jr. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jill Kulpinski Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 3:07 PM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: Being blacklisted by Spews Hello, What do other ISPs in the community do if they have Customers who get the ISPs address space blacklisted by spews? Thanks very much, Jill Kulpinski From jrace at attglobal.net Wed Sep 4 21:23:09 2002 From: jrace at attglobal.net (Dr. Jeffrey Race) Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 08:23:09 +0700 Subject: Being blacklisted by Spews Message-ID: <200209041620.g84GKSWQ006136@smtp1.arin.net> On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 14:07:25 -0700, Jill Kulpinski wrote: >Hello, >What do other ISPs in the community do if they have Customers who get the ISPs address space blacklisted by spews?>Thanks very much,>Jill Kulpinski > Some do nothing. Those who care kick off the offending customer(s), make a public confession (IIRC on NANAE), and wait in purgatory. All this is detailed in the Spews FAQ. Read it. If you need more detail, repost your question on Spam-L. Be sure to don flame-resistant garb before posting :) Jeffrey Race From jlewis at lewis.org Wed Sep 4 21:47:45 2002 From: jlewis at lewis.org (jlewis at lewis.org) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 21:47:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Being blacklisted by Spews In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Jill Kulpinski wrote: > Thanks for your comment and just to clarify, I am not speaking with > regards to Exodus or any specific ISP. This is a general question that > I wanted to raise to the community for feedback. It is interesting > because a lot of the feedback is saying that the ISP would just > disconnect the Customer. What if the Customer was sending a lot of mail > from an address because they provided newsletter distribution services? Regardless of what you or the customer call it, if this customer doing "newsletter distribution services" is sending junk to people who didn't ask for it, you're going to get spam complaints. What the heck does this have to do with ARIN? More on-topic for this list would be a question that's been argued about recently in SPAM-L. It seems there is at least one semi-popular dnsbl (used to block email potentially spam) with a policy of never delisting IP's. Whether you've dealt with the problem, canceled the customer, inherited the tainted IP space and had nothing to do with the past abuse, they don't care. They're not delisting you. So...in ARIN's opinion where the "efficient utilization" of IP space is concerned as it pertains to applications for additional IP allocations, what is a member to do with permenantly blacklisted IP space? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis *jlewis at lewis.org*| I route System Administrator | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ From leth at primus.ca Wed Sep 4 21:51:35 2002 From: leth at primus.ca (Jason Hunt) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 21:51:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Being blacklisted by Spews In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020904214822.K186-100000@lethargic.dyndns.org> On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Jill Kulpinski wrote: > > Hello Hansel and all, > Thanks for your comment and just to clarify, I am not speaking with > regards to Exodus or any specific ISP. This is a general question that > I wanted to raise to the community for feedback. > It is interesting because a lot of the feedback is saying that the ISP > would just disconnect the Customer. What if the Customer was sending a > lot of mail from an address because they provided newsletter > distribution services? > I think in that case the list maintainers would (should?) be running their newletter on an opt-in basis, therefore no one would be complaining and getting them blacklisted in the first place. From jrace at attglobal.net Wed Sep 4 22:16:27 2002 From: jrace at attglobal.net (Dr. Jeffrey Race) Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 09:16:27 +0700 Subject: Being blacklisted by Spews Message-ID: <200209041713.g84HDmWQ006694@smtp1.arin.net> On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 21:47:45 -0400 (EDT), jlewis at lewis.org wrote: >More on-topic for this list would be a question that's been argued about >recently in SPAM-L. It seems there is at least one semi-popular dnsbl >(used to block email potentially spam) with a policy of never delisting >IP's. Whether you've dealt with the problem, canceled the customer, >inherited the tainted IP space and had nothing to do with the past abuse, >they don't care. They're not delisting you. >>So...in ARIN's opinion where the "efficient utilization" of IP space is >concerned as it pertains to applications for additional IP allocations, >what is a member to do with permenantly blacklisted IP space? You refer to Ron Guilmette, one of the smartest cookies in the business to whom the world owes him a lot. For various reasons legal and personal he has felt he must cease list deletions; this may be temporary and as a reasonable person he will be open to discussion on this point when the right moment arrives, I am sure. Anyway use of his list is voluntary, and recent traffic on Spam-L indicates some of his users whitelist those listed who have a legitimate story to tell. As for "what is a member to do with permanantly blacklisted IP space?" the issue is comparable to what is America to do with polluted land sites. Before buying land one must perform due diligence, or one is sucked into the superfund cleanup morass. Those getting (and dispensing) IP address space will have to add to their checklist whether the IP address is polluted. Of course as always the best action is prevention. I have carefully studied this issue and personally believe that spamming can quickly and easily be solved, within days, without lasting collateral damage. I invite those interested to view and comment upon a draft statement on this subject at . I add that since composing this draft I am very pleased to see ICANN has begun to rise from its torpor on the simple (and critical) matter of attaching consequences to actions. (Reference .) Kind regards to all, Dr. Jeffrey Race, President Cambridge Electronics Laboratories 20 Chester Street, Somerville MA 02144-3005 USA Tel +1 617 625-7645 (res) Tel +1 617 629-2805 (ofc) Fax +1 617 623-1882 Tel +1 617 823-2941/504-4124 (mobile--sometimes on) ????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ? Download TELECOM DESIGN TRICKS! ? ? ? ? ? ? Download information on our latest product: ? ? QUIKLINK PRIVATE WIRE AUTOMATIC RINGDOWN UNIT ? ? ? ?It's new! It's very small! It's very inexpensive!? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????? To exterminate spammers view From asr at latency.net Wed Sep 4 22:27:47 2002 From: asr at latency.net (Adam Rothschild) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 22:27:47 -0400 Subject: Being blacklisted by Spews In-Reply-To: ; from Jill.Kulpinski@exodus.net on Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 05:21:16PM -0700 References: Message-ID: <20020904222747.C91670@latency.net> On 2002-09-04-20:21:16, Jill Kulpinski wrote: > Thanks for your comment and just to clarify, I am not speaking with > regards to Exodus or any specific ISP. So why are you posting from an Exodus address, presumably in an official capacity? As Hansen pointed out, Exodus is no stranger to the NANAE community. It's about time to stop making excuses, and start taking action. > It is interesting because a lot of the feedback is saying that the > ISP would just disconnect the Customer. What if the Customer was > sending a lot of mail from an address because they provided > newsletter distribution services? Then the burden should be on the customer to prove they're running a legitimate opt-in newsletter service; most *reputable* ones keep detailed logs of http/mail headers of subscribers opting in. If they can't produce, punt them... Mind you, I'm not a big SPEWS fan, but you haven't provided me with any compelling evidence to prove they were unjust in blackholing you. -a From easmith at beatrice.rutgers.edu Wed Sep 4 20:47:55 2002 From: easmith at beatrice.rutgers.edu (Allen Smith) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 20:47:55 -0400 Subject: Being blacklisted by Spews In-Reply-To: "Jill Kulpinski" "RE: Being blacklisted by Spews" (Sep 4, 8:41pm) References: Message-ID: <10209042047.ZM1331457@puck2.rutgers.edu> On Sep 4, 8:41pm, Jill Kulpinski wrote: > Hello Hansel and all, > Thanks for your comment and just to clarify, I am not speaking with > regards to Exodus or any specific ISP. This is a general question that I > wanted to raise to the community for feedback. Ah. > It is interesting because a lot of the feedback is saying that the ISP > would just disconnect the Customer. What if the Customer was sending a > lot of mail from an address because they provided newsletter distribution > services? Is the newsletter confirmed opt-in - and can the customer _prove_ that this is the case? Then neither SPEWS nor anyone else (other than competitors!) is going to have a problem with the newsletter, and it will not have caused a listing. If not, then they're spammers, and the ISP should kick them off - or the ISP will suffer the consequences, as will anyone else dumb enough to do business with a spam-friendly ISP. -Allen -- Allen Smith http://cesario.rutgers.edu/easmith/ September 11, 2001 A Day That Shall Live In Infamy II "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin From easmith at beatrice.rutgers.edu Wed Sep 4 23:01:38 2002 From: easmith at beatrice.rutgers.edu (Allen Smith) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 23:01:38 -0400 Subject: Being blacklisted by Spews In-Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" "RE: Being blacklisted by Spews" (Sep 4, 10:47pm) References: <200209041713.g84HDmWQ006694@smtp1.arin.net> Message-ID: <10209042301.ZM1298358@puck2.rutgers.edu> On Sep 4, 10:47pm, Dr. Jeffrey Race wrote: > On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 21:47:45 -0400 (EDT), jlewis at lewis.org wrote: > >More on-topic for this list would be a question that's been argued about > >recently in SPAM-L. It seems there is at least one semi-popular dnsbl > >(used to block email potentially spam) with a policy of never delisting > >IP's. Whether you've dealt with the problem, canceled the customer, > >inherited the tainted IP space and had nothing to do with the past abuse, > >they don't care. They're not delisting you. > >>So...in ARIN's opinion where the "efficient utilization" of IP space is > >concerned as it pertains to applications for additional IP allocations, > >what is a member to do with permenantly blacklisted IP space? > > You refer to Ron Guilmette, one of the smartest cookies in the > business to whom the world owes him a lot. For various reasons legal and > personal he has felt he must cease list deletions; this may be > temporary Putting pressure on ISPs such as Verio to stop threatening to sue blacklist maintainers and instead actually adequately _fix_ the problems in question would distinctly increase the chances of this being the case, of course. That is my recommendation for what an ISP should do if they're in this situation. > As for "what is a member to do with permanantly blacklisted IP space?" > the issue is comparable to what is America to do with polluted land > sites. Before buying land one must perform due diligence, or one > is sucked into the superfund cleanup morass. Those getting (and > dispensing) IP address space will have to add to their checklist > whether the IP address is polluted. Indeed. Holding those formerly with said IP space liable for bringing that IP address space into disrepute, as it were - not only with organized blacklists but the many, many private ones by various administrators, which tend to be much slower to be updated for changing circumstances - would be helpful, either in court or by less formal actions. -Allen -- Allen Smith http://cesario.rutgers.edu/easmith/ September 11, 2001 A Day That Shall Live In Infamy II "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin From JimFleming at ameritech.net Thu Sep 5 00:08:38 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 23:08:38 -0500 Subject: 009/8... IBM....Aug 92...RIGHTS...ARCH...DYNAMITE...TRIBE...BURNT...ISTANBUL...RIGHT...UNION References: <10209042047.ZM1331457@puck2.rutgers.edu> Message-ID: <01d601c25491$ea224220$8c56fea9@repligate> 009/8... IBM....Aug 92...RIGHTS...ARCH...DYNAMITE...TRIBE...BURNT...ISTANBUL...RIGHT...UNION In the IPv8 Address Management plan, the legacy address space is managed by clusters of TLD Managers, as opposed to one central body, which seems to favor giving free allocations to the "right" people and charges others for address space allocation. The 8 TLD Managers could be considered "Trustees" of the address space allocations. They can collectively help to ensure that the address space is being used effectively and is allocated fairly. If organizations are not using their allocations, they can turn them into the 8 TLD Managers who can help to reallocate the space via the management of the IN-ADDR.ARPA domain names. As an example, the 9.*.*.* legacy 32-bit space can be collectively managed by IBM and various TLD Managers. They can do a survey of how the address space is used, whether it is effectively being used, and whether the annual fees are being paid for the usage. Based on the market rates of $10 per month for one 32-bit IP address, a /8 would lease for about $168 million per year, which is a one month brokers fee common in real estate. That can help to fund the 8 TLD managers, with $21 million per year (each). People with domain names to the left of 9.IN-ADDR.ARPA (using this example) would of course pay annual fees for those allocations. If the space is no longer used, then there would of course be no revenue from leasing it. Large blocks may have to be sub-divided (like land) to make it more useable. The 9 Trustees may of course decide not to charge each other any money. How they then pay the IN-ADDR.ARPA Manager is left to them. IN-ADDR.ARPA appears to still be run *directly* on the legacy root servers, as opposed to on .ARPA TLD servers. No surprise there. http://www.analogx.com/cgi-bin/cgidig.exe?DNS=205.214.45.10&Query=in-addr.arpa&Type=2&submit=Lookup http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space 009/8 IBM Aug 92 0:72 RIGHTS 0:73 ARCH 0:74 DYNAMITE 0:75 TRIBE 0:76 BURNT 0:77 ISTANBUL 0:78 RIGHT 0:79 UNION ============================ http://root-dns.org/vuedig/vuedig_tld.php?record=NS&tld=rights http://root-dns.org/vuedig/vuedig_tld.php?record=NS&tld=arch http://root-dns.org/vuedig/vuedig_tld.php?record=NS&tld=dynamite http://root-dns.org/vuedig/vuedig_tld.php?record=NS&tld=tribe http://root-dns.org/vuedig/vuedig_tld.php?record=NS&tld=burnt http://root-dns.org/vuedig/vuedig_tld.php?record=NS&tld=istanbul http://root-dns.org/vuedig/vuedig_tld.php?record=NS&tld=rights http://root-dns.org/vuedig/vuedig_tld.php?record=NS&tld=union ============================ Jim Fleming 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think... http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.yi.org http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.org http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt 000/8 IANA - Reserved Sep 81 0:0 ARPA 0:1 NET 0:2 BRAND 0:3 SITE 0:4 HARD 0:5 BLOOD 0:6 BLOWN 0:7 HTML 001/8 IANA - Reserved Sep 81 0:8 UNDERGROUND 0:9 CORP 0:10 GOLDEN 0:11 Y (Single Letter TLD) 0:12 TOWN 0:13 NASDAQ 0:14 METER 0:15 TIME 002/8 IANA - Reserved Sep 81 0:16 STORE 0:17 BODY 0:18 MAPLE 0:19 AUTO 0:20 CHAIN 0:21 CHARTERS 0:22 BOLT 0:23 BOLTS 003/8 General Electric Company May 94 0:24 NYSE 0:25 TOUR 0:26 PUBLIC 0:27 COUPONS 0:28 COMIC 0:29 CONSULT 0:30 XXX 0:31 HOME 004/8 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. Dec 92 0:32 RESTAURANT 0:33 BOOT 0:34 LLB 0:35 AGENCY 0:36 RIVET 0:37 CENTRAL 0:38 GROUP 0:39 BOXE 005/8 IANA - Reserved Jul 95 0:40 ARENA 0:41 CREATIONS 0:42 SCAPE 0:43 VOICE 0:44 ASSOCIATES 0:45 BEAT 0:46 STOCK 0:47 BREAD 006/8 Army Information Systems Center Feb 94 0:48 JOURNAL 0:49 LOGIC 0:50 MATERIALS 0:51 WISE 0:52 DIGIT 0:53 DRAIN 0:54 EZONE 0:55 INDEED 007/8 IANA - Reserved Apr 95 0:56 BRICK 0:57 ROPE 0:58 SKATE 0:59 FLUX 0:60 FORUM 0:61 GMBH 0:62 HOSTEL 0:63 RUG 008/8 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. Dec 92 0:64 G0 0:65 BRUSH 0:66 Y2K 0:67 BULB 0:68 TAPE 0:69 DOKA 0:70 EAST 0:71 IMAGE 009/8 IBM Aug 92 0:72 RIGHTS 0:73 ARCH 0:74 DYNAMITE 0:75 TRIBE 0:76 BURNT 0:77 ISTANBUL 0:78 RIGHT 0:79 UNION ... ======================================================== From john at chagres.net Thu Sep 5 10:29:15 2002 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 08:29:15 -0600 Subject: Slight topic change, perm listing by some DNSBL's RE: Being blacklisted by Spews In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <005201c254e8$a36709e0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> Speaking as Me. I don't think the RIR's should get involved in this matter. If some DNSBL is listing a once badly used prefix and they refuse to delete it, then that is an issue between the "holder of the prefix" and the DNSBL provider. In North America, people would have various legal remedies available to them and thus could compele the DNSBL provider to remove the block now that it is no longer being used to abuse networks.. Just like IANA / ICANN / are not the Net Abuse police, the RIR's shouldn't be either. More than likely, people are going to not use the DNSBL provider that never removes, or they are going to stop using them. just my personal .02 worth. comments welcomed. john > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of jlewis at lewis.org > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 7:48 PM > To: Jill Kulpinski > Cc: ppml at arin.net; arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: RE: Being blacklisted by Spews > > > On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Jill Kulpinski wrote: > > > Thanks for your comment and just to clarify, I am not speaking with > > regards to Exodus or any specific ISP. This is a general question > > that I wanted to raise to the community for feedback. It is > > interesting because a lot of the feedback is saying that > the ISP would > > just disconnect the Customer. What if the Customer was > sending a lot > > of mail from an address because they provided newsletter > distribution > > services? > > Regardless of what you or the customer call it, if this > customer doing "newsletter distribution services" is sending > junk to people who didn't ask for it, you're going to get > spam complaints. > > What the heck does this have to do with ARIN? > > More on-topic for this list would be a question that's been > argued about recently in SPAM-L. It seems there is at least > one semi-popular dnsbl (used to block email potentially spam) > with a policy of never delisting IP's. Whether you've dealt > with the problem, canceled the customer, inherited the > tainted IP space and had nothing to do with the past abuse, > they don't care. They're not delisting you. > > So...in ARIN's opinion where the "efficient utilization" of > IP space is > concerned as it pertains to applications for additional IP > allocations, > what is a member to do with permenantly blacklisted IP space? > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Jon Lewis *jlewis at lewis.org*| I route > System Administrator | therefore you are > Atlantic Net | > _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ > From JimFleming at ameritech.net Thu Sep 12 12:15:54 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 11:15:54 -0500 Subject: 3FFE::/16 address space... Message-ID: <08df01c25a77$abf7d870$8c56fea9@repligate> http://www.arin.net/announcements/08202002.html "It has been proposed that the management of the 6bone 3FFE::/16 address space be transferred to the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). More information about the 6bone can be obtained at http://www.6bone.net/." ===== Why would people pay RIRs for address space ? ....when they can get it FREE....via the current 2002:[IPv4] approach which simply requires a person to have one dynamic (or static) IPv4 address as a site-id... Also, why isn't the address space allocation business totally automated ? ...why are so many people required ? ...what do they do all day ? Jim Fleming 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer... http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.yi.org http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.org http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt From tomas at impsat.com Thu Sep 12 12:35:15 2002 From: tomas at impsat.com (tomas at impsat.com) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:35:15 -0400 Subject: 3FFE::/16 address space... Message-ID: <631E3B8AF304D411AF7300D0B73C5E2F0253CE23@IMP-SERVER4> Are you sure? Tom?s Lynch > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Fleming [mailto:JimFleming at ameritech.net] > Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 12:16 PM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: 3FFE::/16 address space... > From JimFleming at ameritech.net Thu Sep 12 13:29:56 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:29:56 -0500 Subject: 3FFE::/16 address space... References: <631E3B8AF304D411AF7300D0B73C5E2F0253CE23@IMP-SERVER4> Message-ID: <094e01c25a82$03dc9030$8c56fea9@repligate> http://lacnic.net/en/transition.html "On 2 September 2002, customers in the emerging LACNIC region will begin to receive invoices from LACNIC. Monies will be payable in US dollars. All monies collected by LACNIC will be transferred to ARIN. ARIN in turn will return a portion of those monies to LACNIC to help sustain LACNIC operations. Upon final recognition, the transfer of monies will cease. The target date for the cessation of money transfer is 18 November 2002." ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 11:35 AM Subject: RE: 3FFE::/16 address space... > Are you sure? > > Tom?s Lynch > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jim Fleming [mailto:JimFleming at ameritech.net] > > Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 12:16 PM > > To: ppml at arin.net > > Subject: 3FFE::/16 address space... > > From memsvcs at arin.net Mon Sep 16 14:29:37 2002 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 14:29:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Take Action: Nominate Candidates and Register for ARIN X Message-ID: ARIN encourages you to get involved this fall by participating in the ARIN election process and by voicing your opinions at the upcoming Public Policy meeting. As an ARIN member you have until September 30 to nominate candidates you would like to see run for the ARIN Board of Trustees and Advisory Council. Self-nomination by ARIN members is also encouraged. In addition, anyone may nominate candidates for the open seat on the ICANN ASO Address Council from the ARIN region. For election details and nomination forms see: http://www.arin.net/elections/index.html Registration is now open for the ARIN X Public Policy and Members meetings to be held October 30 - November 1. The meetings will be held in Eugene, Oregon immediately following NANOG 26, so take advantage of the joint location and plan to attend both. ARIN is seeking sponsors for a variety of events in Eugene. Be sure to consider these opportunities to contribute to the IP address community. Meeting details can be found at: http://www.arin.net/ARIN-X/index.html Regards, ARIN Member Services From baptista at dot-god.com Sat Sep 21 15:53:27 2002 From: baptista at dot-god.com (Joe Baptista) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 15:53:27 -0400 Subject: INTERVIEW comments by Conrad Message-ID: <3D8CCE37.AD6B7C8@dot-god.com> I have the following in an article to be published this week "David Conrad recently reminded legal participant of telecom conferences that Ipv4 address space remains yours even if you don't pay the registry fees. Conrad a registry insider at ARIN admitted people don't have to return address space if they don't pay their fees." Can anyone tell me why this is the case? regards joe baptista -- www.dot-god.com .. on the other side of the internet universe From Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca Mon Sep 23 10:22:58 2002 From: Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca (Trevor Paquette) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 08:22:58 -0600 Subject: INTERVIEW comments by Conrad In-Reply-To: <3D8CCE37.AD6B7C8@dot-god.com> Message-ID: <000801c2630c$b7f35490$3102a8c0@teraint.net> Damn good question.. I've always thought that IP space was a luxury, not a right. I would like to have David Conrad expound on his statments here.. Speeking of which.. What is ARIN actively doing to RECLAIM IP space?? REAL Example: Two large Oil and Gas companies recently merged in Canada, each having their own Class B (Yes.. 'B').. The newly formed entity now has TWO Class B IP subnets, that I know is NOT activly being used on the Internet. The company could easily get away with RFC-1918 space and a few Class Cs for their outside connectivity. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of Joe > Baptista > Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 1:53 PM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: INTERVIEW comments by Conrad > > > I have the following in an article to be published this week > > "David Conrad recently reminded legal participant of telecom > conferences > that Ipv4 address space remains yours even if you don't pay > the registry > fees. Conrad a registry insider at ARIN admitted people don't have to > return address space if they don't pay their fees." > > Can anyone tell me why this is the case? > > regards > joe baptista > > -- > www.dot-god.com > .. on the other side of the internet universe > > From JimFleming at ameritech.net Mon Sep 23 11:07:14 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:07:14 -0500 Subject: "...using addresses not assigned to you on the public network..." Message-ID: <0f7401c26312$e6d783c0$c6b22543@repligate> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg17688.html From: John Stracke "...using addresses not assigned to you on the public network..." ======== Can you explain what the "public network" is and how addresses are assigned to people or companies ? Are there legal contracts ? Are fees paid in all cases ? Are the same fees paid by everyone ? Who benefits from the fees paid ? http://www.icann.org/committees/security/ http://www.icann.org/committees/dns-root/rssac-notes-15jul02.htm http://www.arin.net/about_us/ab_org_bot.html Who benefits by not paying any fees ? http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space What is the difference in this list and the IN-ADDR.ARPA delegations ? http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space Why do some companies charge $10 per month for ONE static IP and some charge $15 per month ? How many static IPs can be leased from a /8 ? What is the monthly revenue ? What role does the IETF and the ISOC play in assigning addresses ? Are you familiar with RICO laws in the United States ? Does the U.S. Government manage the "allocation of spectrum" ? http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/2002/3Gadvisory7222002.htm Are these "spectrum allocations" ? http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space Jim Fleming 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer... http://www.netfilter.org/ http://www.analogx.com/contents/dnsdig.htm http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.yi.org http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.org http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au http://ipv8.ods.org From moraleja at racsa.co.cr Mon Sep 23 11:00:52 2002 From: moraleja at racsa.co.cr (moraleja) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:00:52 -0500 Subject: "...using addresses not assigned to you on the public network..." References: <0f7401c26312$e6d783c0$c6b22543@repligate> Message-ID: <000e01c26312$39e0f340$f2c9fea9@r9k2n2> dont send more email thanks ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Fleming To: Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 10:07 AM Subject: "...using addresses not assigned to you on the public network..." > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg17688.html > From: John Stracke > "...using addresses not assigned to you on the public network..." > ======== > > Can you explain what the "public network" is and how addresses are assigned to people or companies ? > > Are there legal contracts ? > > Are fees paid in all cases ? > > Are the same fees paid by everyone ? > > Who benefits from the fees paid ? > http://www.icann.org/committees/security/ > http://www.icann.org/committees/dns-root/rssac-notes-15jul02.htm > http://www.arin.net/about_us/ab_org_bot.html > > Who benefits by not paying any fees ? > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > > What is the difference in this list and the IN-ADDR.ARPA delegations ? > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > > Why do some companies charge $10 per month for ONE static IP and some charge $15 per month ? > How many static IPs can be leased from a /8 ? > What is the monthly revenue ? > > What role does the IETF and the ISOC play in assigning addresses ? > Are you familiar with RICO laws in the United States ? > > Does the U.S. Government manage the "allocation of spectrum" ? > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/2002/3Gadvisory7222002.htm > > Are these "spectrum allocations" ? > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > > > Jim Fleming > 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer... > http://www.netfilter.org/ > http://www.analogx.com/contents/dnsdig.htm > http://ipv8.dyndns.tv > http://ipv8.yi.org > http://ipv8.dyns.cx > http://ipv8.no-ip.com > http://ipv8.no-ip.org > http://ipv8.no-ip.biz > http://ipv8.no-ip.info > http://ipv8.myip.us > http://ipv8.dyn.ee > http://ipv8.community.net.au > http://ipv8.ods.org > > From memsvcs at arin.net Mon Sep 23 13:52:53 2002 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 13:52:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: ARIN Policy Proposals Message-ID: To All Interested Parties: ARIN will hold its next Public Policy Meeting in Eugene, Oregon on October 30 through 31, 2002. Meeting and registration details can be found at: http://www.arin.net/ARIN-X/index.html ARIN's Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process specifies that policy proposals must be posted to the ARIN mailing lists at least 30 days prior to an ARIN meeting where they will be discussed. ARIN's Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process is described at: http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html ARIN staff has received from various sources policy proposals to be discussed at the upcoming Public Policy Meeting. Each of these proposals will be released as a separate e-mail to the public policy mailing list over the next several days. The progress of each policy proposal will be tracked and documented at the following location. http://www.arin.net/policy/proposal_archive.html The entire Internet community is invited and encouraged to participate in these policy discussions. Your active participation in these discussions will help to form policies that are beneficial to all. Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From memsvcs at arin.net Mon Sep 23 15:10:27 2002 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 15:10:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Policy Proposal 2002-2 Message-ID: ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in Eugene, Oregon, scheduled for October 30-31, 2002. All feedback received on the mailing list about this policy proposal will be included in the discussions that will take place at the upcoming Public Policy Meeting. This policy proposal discussion will take place on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ppml at arin.net). Subscription information is available at http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ### * ### Policy Proposal 2002-2: Experimental Internet Resource Allocations There have been a number of experimental address allocations undertaken in the Internet over the past decade. These experimental address allocations have been made by the IANA in coordination with standards bodies, such as the IETF, on an ad hoc basis. There is currently no systematic means of receiving other Numbering Resources on a temporary basis as part of a recognised experiment in Internet technology deployment. The following policy is proposed: The RIRs will allocate Numbering Resources to entities requiring temporary Numbering Resources for a fixed period of time under the terms of recognised experimental activity. The following criteria for this policy are proposed: 1. Public Disclosure of Experimental Requests The organisation requesting the resources will have to detail what experimental work they are going to carry out. Such detail can usually be made either: * by submitting a proposal that references a current IETF Experimental RFC (Detail Two), or * by submitting an 'experiment proposal' detailing what resources are required, and what activities will be carried out (Detail Three). Such experimental proposals will, in the normal course of events be made public upon acceptance of the proposal by an RIR. Consideration will be given to non-disclosure constraints, but this is anticipated to be a prohibitive constraint upon the use of public Numbering Resources, even in an experimental context. The RIR will not allocate resources if the entire research experiment cannot be publicly disclosed as per Details Two and Three following. 2. Resource Coordination with Standards Development Bodies The IETF from time to time describes experimental activities and associated requirements for resources that will be required by participants in the experiment. It is considered as being acceptable for the organisation to reference a current Experimental RFC and indicate the organisation's participation in the experiment. Organisations such as the IETF, who describe experimental activities as part of their standards development process, need to consider the associated Numbering Resource requirements with any proposed experiment, and under this proposal will need to liaise with the RIRs as part of the process of publishing a draft as an experimental RFC. 3. Resource Coordination with Independent Experiments For experimental proposals not covered by Detail Two, the RIR will require the experiment's aims and objectives to be published in a publicly accessible document. The RIRs have a strong preference for the use of an Experimental RFC published through the IETF, but will accept other publication mechanisms where the experiment's objectives and practices are publicly and openly available free of charges and free of any constraints of disclosure. The RIRs would also normally require that the experiment's outcomes be published in an openly and freely available document, again free of charges and free of any constraints of disclosure. 4. Resource Allocation Term and Renewal The Numbering Resources are allocated on a lease/license basis for a period of one year. The allocation can be renewed on application to the issuing RIR providing information as per in Detail One. The identity and details of the applicant and the allocated Numbering Resources will be published under the conditions of the RIR's normal publication policy (for example, listed as a temporary allocation in the RIR's database). 5. Single Resource Allocation per Experiment The RIR will make one-off allocations only, on an annual basis. Additional allocations outside the annual cycle will not be made unless justified by a subsequent complete application. It's important for the requesting organisation to ensure they have sufficient resources requested as part of their initial application for the proposed experimental use. 6. Resource Allocation Fees Each RIR may charge an administration fee to cover each allocation made of these experimental resources. This fee simply covers registration and maintenance, rather than the full allocation process for standard RIR members. This administration fee should be as low as possible as these requests do not have to undergo the same evaluation process as those requested in the normal policy environment. 7. Resource Allocation Size The Numbering Resources requested come from the global Internet Resource space, and are not from private or other non-routable Internet Resource space. The allocation size should be consistent with the existing RIR minimum allocation sizes, unless small allocations are intended to be explicitly part of the experiment. If an organisation requires more resource than stipulated by the minimum allocation sizes in force at the time of their request, they should include in their research proposal why this is required. 8. Commercial Use Prohibited If there is any evidence that the temporary resource is being used for commercial purposes, or is being used for any activities not documented in the original experiment description provided to the RIR, the issuing RIR reserves the right to immediately withdraw the resource and reassign it to the free pool. 9. Resource Request Appeal or Arbitration The RIRs should be in a position to assess and comment on the objectives of the experiment with regard to the requested amount of Numbering Resources. The issuing RIR should be able to modify the requested allocation as appropriate, and in agreement with the proposer. In the event that the proposed modifications are not acceptable, the requesting organization may request an appeal or arbitration using the normal procedures of the RIR. In this case, the original standards body that endorsed the experimental action may be requested to provide additional information regarding the experiment and its objectives to assist in the resolution of the appeal. ### end ### From memsvcs at arin.net Mon Sep 23 15:14:04 2002 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 15:14:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Policy Proposal 2002-3 Message-ID: ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in Eugene, Oregon, scheduled for October 30-31, 2002. All feedback received on the mailing list about this policy proposal will be included in the discussions that will take place at the upcoming Public Policy Meeting. This policy proposal discussion will take place on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ppml at arin.net). Subscription information is available at http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ### * ### Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for Multihomed Networks ARIN's current minimum assignment size is a /20. The following is proposed to enable multihomed networks to obtain their IPv4 address space directly from ARIN: Multihomed networks not meeting ARIN's current allocation guidelines may receive a properly justified /21-/24 sized network provided they have no other ARIN assigned space, and return all non-portable address space within 3 months of receiving their allocation. No justification (other than being multihomed, having no other allocations, and returning all other non-portable space) is required for a /24. ### end ### From moraleja at racsa.co.cr Mon Sep 23 14:58:24 2002 From: moraleja at racsa.co.cr (moraleja) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 13:58:24 -0500 Subject: "...using addresses not assigned to you on the public network..." References: <0f7401c26312$e6d783c0$c6b22543@repligate> Message-ID: <001c01c26333$34fbe300$c43628c4@r9k2n2> yo no entiendo ingles y mi contrato en costa rica se paga y es racsa.co.cr ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Fleming To: Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 10:07 AM Subject: "...using addresses not assigned to you on the public network..." > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg17688.html > From: John Stracke > "...using addresses not assigned to you on the public network..." > ======== > > Can you explain what the "public network" is and how addresses are assigned to people or companies ? > > Are there legal contracts ? > > Are fees paid in all cases ? > > Are the same fees paid by everyone ? > > Who benefits from the fees paid ? > http://www.icann.org/committees/security/ > http://www.icann.org/committees/dns-root/rssac-notes-15jul02.htm > http://www.arin.net/about_us/ab_org_bot.html > > Who benefits by not paying any fees ? > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > > What is the difference in this list and the IN-ADDR.ARPA delegations ? > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > > Why do some companies charge $10 per month for ONE static IP and some charge $15 per month ? > How many static IPs can be leased from a /8 ? > What is the monthly revenue ? > > What role does the IETF and the ISOC play in assigning addresses ? > Are you familiar with RICO laws in the United States ? > > Does the U.S. Government manage the "allocation of spectrum" ? > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/2002/3Gadvisory7222002.htm > > Are these "spectrum allocations" ? > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > > > Jim Fleming > 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer... > http://www.netfilter.org/ > http://www.analogx.com/contents/dnsdig.htm > http://ipv8.dyndns.tv > http://ipv8.yi.org > http://ipv8.dyns.cx > http://ipv8.no-ip.com > http://ipv8.no-ip.org > http://ipv8.no-ip.biz > http://ipv8.no-ip.info > http://ipv8.myip.us > http://ipv8.dyn.ee > http://ipv8.community.net.au > http://ipv8.ods.org > > From Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca Mon Sep 23 16:03:36 2002 From: Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca (Trevor Paquette) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 14:03:36 -0600 Subject: Policy Proposal 2002-3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003401c2633c$4e0d0960$3102a8c0@teraint.net> Didn't the ARIN body (ie:the members) move away from giving out small allocations for a reason? So what would ARIN want to move back? If this policy must be tabled.. I would also add that the organization must continue to be multi-homed. This should be able to be verified via BGP advertising. When an entity is no longer multi-homed for 1 month (anyone else suggest another timeframe?), ARIN should reclaim that IP space and inform the original organization and the single BGP advertising entity that they are to stop advertising it. My concern is that there needs to be a built in reclaimation process as well as a provisioning process. How might this be monitored and who is going to monitor it? Nothing like burning up the remaining IPv4 space to speed up the roll-out of IPv6...... > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-arin-announce at arin.net > [mailto:owner-arin-announce at arin.net]On Behalf Of Member Services > Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 1:14 PM > To: arin-announce at arin.net; ppml at arin.net > Subject: Policy Proposal 2002-3 > > > > ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy > proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting > in Eugene, Oregon, scheduled for October 30-31, 2002. All feedback > received on the mailing list about this policy proposal will be > included in the discussions that will take place at the upcoming > Public Policy Meeting. > > This policy proposal discussion will take place on the ARIN Public > Policy Mailing List (ppml at arin.net). Subscription information is > available at http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html > > Richard Jimmerson > Director of Operations > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > ### * ### > > Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for Multihomed Networks > > ARIN's current minimum assignment size is a /20. The following > is proposed to enable multihomed networks to obtain their IPv4 > address space directly from ARIN: > > Multihomed networks not meeting ARIN's current allocation guidelines > may receive a properly justified /21-/24 sized network provided > they have no other ARIN assigned space, and return all non-portable > address space within 3 months of receiving their allocation. No > justification (other than being multihomed, having no other > allocations, and returning all other non-portable space) is required > for a /24. > > ### end ### > From david.conrad at nominum.com Mon Sep 23 15:44:35 2002 From: david.conrad at nominum.com (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 12:44:35 -0700 Subject: INTERVIEW comments by Conrad In-Reply-To: <000801c2630c$b7f35490$3102a8c0@teraint.net> Message-ID: Trevor, To be clear, I never gave an interview to Baptista (even the idea what he is a reporter is laughable, see http://www.kkc.net/baptista/ or his 'contributions' to the ICANN mailing lists as to why). What I did do (stupid me) is respond to an erroneous assertion of his (among various other innuendos and insinuations) on the cybertelecom mailing list (is a mailing list a conference?), specifically, Baptista stated: >>> according to ARIN the smallest allocation has a rental value of $2,500 USD >>> per year. I merely pointed out that the registries do not revoke allocations if an organization does not pay the allocation fee. The fees charged by the registries are for the service of allocation and are approved by the memberships of the registries. The fee, at least historically, has not been a "rental". Now, with respect to your mail: On 9/23/02 7:22 AM, "Trevor Paquette" wrote: > I've always thought that IP space was a luxury, not a right. (As an aside, the assertion I was responding was in the context of valuation of address space.) I tend to view IP space as niether. IP space is an abstraction that has value depending on context. Address space obtained from a regional registry has value in its uniqueness. ISPs can provide additional value to those unique addresses by routing them. On the other hand, what is the value of 10/8? IP space (v4 or v6) are merely integers. The service of insuring uniqueness and routability provide value to those integers. One can argue that both of those value inducing properties are luxuries and I'm sure someone will argue they are rights, but that is not an argument I'd be interested in getting into. > I would like to have David Conrad expound on his statments > here.. Hope this clarifies things. Note that Baptista is in my loon filter (a necessary evil when you get as much email as I do), so responses may be delayed if his email address shows up in the headers. > What is ARIN actively doing to RECLAIM IP space?? This question would be more appropriately directed at ARIN staff (who will jump in, if what I say is in error). However, my understanding is that efforts are actively underway to "clean" the database as a first step. Of course, attempting to 'reclaim' address space from someone unwilling to give it up (and who has contractual agreements with ISPs to route the space) will be the tricky part. As roughly 45% of the address space (according to the weekly routing table analysis sent out by APNIC) has not been allocated, rushing into lawsuits is probably not what ARIN needs to do right now (IMHO). Rgds, -drc From Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca Mon Sep 23 16:39:08 2002 From: Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca (Trevor Paquette) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 14:39:08 -0600 Subject: INTERVIEW comments by Conrad In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003901c26341$44b34aa0$3102a8c0@teraint.net> Doh... I thought that name sounded familier... Thanx for the clarification Dave. > -----Original Message----- > From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad at nominum.com] > Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 1:45 PM > To: Trevor Paquette; ARIN PPML > Subject: Re: INTERVIEW comments by Conrad > > > Trevor, > > To be clear, I never gave an interview to Baptista (even the > idea what he is > a reporter is laughable, see http://www.kkc.net/baptista/ or his > 'contributions' to the ICANN mailing lists as to why). What I did do > (stupid me) is respond to an erroneous assertion of his > (among various other > innuendos and insinuations) on the cybertelecom mailing list > (is a mailing > list a conference?), specifically, Baptista stated: > > >>> according to ARIN the smallest allocation has a rental > value of $2,500 USD > >>> per year. > > I merely pointed out that the registries do not revoke > allocations if an > organization does not pay the allocation fee. The fees charged by the > registries are for the service of allocation and are approved by the > memberships of the registries. The fee, at least > historically, has not been > a "rental". > > Now, with respect to your mail: > > On 9/23/02 7:22 AM, "Trevor Paquette" > wrote: > > I've always thought that IP space was a luxury, not a right. > > (As an aside, the assertion I was responding was in the > context of valuation > of address space.) > > I tend to view IP space as niether. IP space is an > abstraction that has > value depending on context. Address space obtained from a > regional registry > has value in its uniqueness. ISPs can provide additional > value to those > unique addresses by routing them. On the other hand, what is > the value of > 10/8? > > IP space (v4 or v6) are merely integers. The service of > insuring uniqueness > and routability provide value to those integers. One can > argue that both of > those value inducing properties are luxuries and I'm sure > someone will argue > they are rights, but that is not an argument I'd be > interested in getting > into. > > > I would like to have David Conrad expound on his statments > > here.. > > Hope this clarifies things. Note that Baptista is in my loon > filter (a > necessary evil when you get as much email as I do), so > responses may be > delayed if his email address shows up in the headers. > > > What is ARIN actively doing to RECLAIM IP space?? > > This question would be more appropriately directed at ARIN > staff (who will > jump in, if what I say is in error). However, my > understanding is that > efforts are actively underway to "clean" the database as a > first step. Of > course, attempting to 'reclaim' address space from someone > unwilling to give > it up (and who has contractual agreements with ISPs to route > the space) will > be the tricky part. As roughly 45% of the address space > (according to the > weekly routing table analysis sent out by APNIC) has not been > allocated, > rushing into lawsuits is probably not what ARIN needs to do right now > (IMHO). > > Rgds, > -drc > From shane at time-travellers.org Mon Sep 23 18:29:16 2002 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 00:29:16 +0200 Subject: Policy Proposal 2002-3 In-Reply-To: <003401c2633c$4e0d0960$3102a8c0@teraint.net>; from Trevor.Paquette@TeraGo.ca at 2002-09-23 14:03:36 -0600 References: <003401c2633c$4e0d0960$3102a8c0@teraint.net> Message-ID: <20020924002915.A31921@mars.lab.time-travellers.org> > > Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for Multihomed Networks On 2002-09-23 14:03:36 -0600, Trevor Paquette wrote: > > I would also add that the organization must continue to be > multi-homed. This should be able to be verified via BGP > advertising. > > When an entity is no longer multi-homed for 1 month (anyone > else suggest another timeframe?), ARIN should reclaim that IP > space and inform the original organization and the single BGP > advertising entity that they are to stop advertising it. > > My concern is that there needs to be a built in reclaimation > process as well as a provisioning process. > > How might this be monitored and who is going to monitor it? There was a fairly detailed discussion on one of the RIPE mailing lists about reclaiming AS numbers that were no longer multihomed. The thing is, how do you determine if a route is multihomed or not? You can't look at the BGP table, because BGP doesn't forward all paths - just the "best" one. You might be able to reclaim some resources by allowing for an imperfect solution. That is, if ARIN, and perhaps some friendly ISP's willing to give ARIN access to a BGP dump, doesn't see a resource being multihomed, then it could ask for the user to give the resource back. If the user declares that it really is multihomed, even though it does not appear in the BGP feed, they get to keep it. While this would allow some users to continue to hold unused resources, it would recover some from either defunct organisations, or merely forgetful and/or lazy parties. The RIPE folks decided this was a bogus idea. Personally, I think the RIPE community was too hasty in dropping the idea. Encouraging users to return some unused resources in a relatively painless way seems like it could be worthwhile. > Nothing like burning up the remaining IPv4 space to speed up > the roll-out of IPv6...... To be fair, all the RIR's combined have only allocated something like 11% of the IP space over a 10 year period. How long do we want the IPv4 space to last, anyway? -- Shane Speaking only for myself From JimFleming at ameritech.net Mon Sep 23 20:04:13 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 19:04:13 -0500 Subject: 2:72 CR (COSTA-RICA)....Re: "...using addresses not assigned to you on the public network..." References: <0f7401c26312$e6d783c0$c6b22543@repligate> <001c01c26333$34fbe300$c43628c4@r9k2n2> Message-ID: <101401c2635d$f3967f30$c6b22543@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "moraleja" To: "Jim Fleming" ; Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 1:58 PM Subject: RE: "...using addresses not assigned to you on the public network..." > yo no entiendo ingles y mi contrato en costa rica se paga y es racsa.co.cr There are no /8s assigned to Latin America...it remains "under" ARIN in the Multi-Level-Marketing Machine. http://lacnic.net/en/transition.html http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space As for any allocations to the .CR TLD Manager via IN-ADDR.CR... http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt 2:72 CR (COSTA-RICA) IN-ADDR.CR does not appear to exist... http://www.analogx.com/cgi-bin/cgidig.exe?DNS=205.214.45.10&Query=IN-ADDR.CR&Type=255&submit=Lookup On the Flag Day for .CR, the software will test that and automatically remove the .CR allocation. That frees it up for a waiting TLD Manager. The Flag Day is easy to compute. Given a 34 hour day. Convetr 2:72 = (2*256)+72 = 584....584/8 = 73 73 * 34 = 2,482 hours into 2003... http://www.calendarhome.com/cgi-bin/date2.pl 128-bit DNS AAAA Record Flag Day Formats 2002:[IPv4]:[SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT]:[64-bit IPv8 or IPv16 Persistent Address] [YMDD]:[IPv4]:[SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT]:[64-bit IPv8 or IPv16 Persistent Address] 1-bit to set the Reserved ("Spare") bit in Fragment Offset [S] 1-bit to set the Don't Fragment (DF) bit [D] 2-bits to select 1 of 4 common TTL values (255, 128, 32, 8) [LL] 1-bit for Options Control [O] 7-bits to set the Identification Field(dst) [FFFFFFF] 4-bits to set the TOS(dst) Field [TTTT] Default SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT = 0000.0000.0000.0000 FFF.FFFF.TTTT = GGG.SSSS.SSSS Jim Fleming 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer... http://www.netfilter.org/ http://www.analogx.com/contents/dnsdig.htm http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.yi.org http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.org http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au http://ipv8.ods.org From baptista at dot-god.com Tue Sep 24 13:42:50 2002 From: baptista at dot-god.com (Joe Baptista) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 13:42:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: INTERVIEW comments by Conrad In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Di I detect an unhappy camper ??? On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, David Conrad wrote: > To be clear, I never gave an interview to Baptista (even the idea what he is > a reporter is laughable, see http://www.kkc.net/baptista/ or his > 'contributions' to the ICANN mailing lists as to why). Well obviously that URL points to an authoritative news source. Obviously the reporting there challenges the standards establish by some of the best news sources in the industry. I never said you gave me an interview. But you did make those comments. The interview was provided by Vint Cerf who has answered the question I originally posed to you concerning your comments. > What I did do > (stupid me) is respond to an erroneous assertion of his (among various other > innuendos and insinuations) on the cybertelecom mailing list (is a mailing > list a conference?), Yes you were stupid. If you don't want to be quoted it is prudent to "shut up" and not say anything. > specifically, Baptista stated: > > >>> according to ARIN the smallest allocation has a rental value of $2,500 USD > >>> per year. maybe you might want to provide the full message. partial quotes do not make the content or intent of a message. The actual claim that was made was by a third party against you. The claim was that during your days in asia (japan) you profited from the allocation of IP space in the asia pacific while north americans got IP space for free. > I merely pointed out that the registries do not revoke allocations if an > organization does not pay the allocation fee. The fees charged by the > registries are for the service of allocation and are approved by the > memberships of the registries. The fee, at least historically, has not been > a "rental". There is no history here to speak of. The fees were only recently imposed. Furthermore your fees were not approved by those who hold the allocations. Your membership (ARIN) is also not very representative of the actual population holding allocations. I believe the point I was making was the fact that small organizations with small allocations were carrying the burden of fees while large organizations with /8 blocks were paying less per IP. Thats significant. But my main question here was why did you make the statement that ARIN was unable to get those allocations back if no payment were made. And Vint Cerf - who I am beginning to suspect is a gentleman - much to my surprise - was able to answer the question. I'll post the URL here when I publish it. > Now, with respect to your mail: > > On 9/23/02 7:22 AM, "Trevor Paquette" wrote: > > I've always thought that IP space was a luxury, not a right. > > (As an aside, the assertion I was responding was in the context of valuation > of address space.) > > I tend to view IP space as niether. IP space is an abstraction that has > value depending on context. Address space obtained from a regional registry > has value in its uniqueness. ISPs can provide additional value to those > unique addresses by routing them. On the other hand, what is the value of > 10/8? well according to arin a /8 is less expensive per IP then a /19. Go figure. /19 must be prettier or sometyhing silly like that. > IP space (v4 or v6) are merely integers. The service of insuring uniqueness > and routability provide value to those integers. One can argue that both of > those value inducing properties are luxuries and I'm sure someone will argue > they are rights, but that is not an argument I'd be interested in getting > into. This sounds like alot of jibberish and an attempt at rationalization. > > What is ARIN actively doing to RECLAIM IP space?? > > This question would be more appropriately directed at ARIN staff (who will > jump in, if what I say is in error). However, my understanding is that > efforts are actively underway to "clean" the database as a first step. Of > course, attempting to 'reclaim' address space from someone unwilling to give > it up (and who has contractual agreements with ISPs to route the space) will > be the tricky part. As roughly 45% of the address space (according to the > weekly routing table analysis sent out by APNIC) has not been allocated, > rushing into lawsuits is probably not what ARIN needs to do right now > (IMHO). It sound to me like an attempt to do a fast slight of hand on existing IP address space holders. I understand ARIN's reluctance to get into lawsuits. But maybe a union of IP address holders should be organized to do just that. There is no rationalization for charging anyone $2,500 for a class C or B or A. All ARIN does is the reverse dns delegations. And that is not worth $2,500 for a /19. Also your reluctance to answer my questions is in itself questionable. May I remind you that you are an official of ARIN and in that capacity you are accountable. But it's a free world - and if you don't want to be quoted again my advice to you is shut up. Now I will save your comment as I think they will be an excellent insertion into a future article on IPv4 and IPv6. Thank you for your time and my thanks to trevor. Like a hunting dog it seem trevor has spooked the fox into the open and all guns are aimed. cheers and my pleasure joe baptista From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Sep 24 14:00:16 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 13:00:16 -0500 Subject: Fw: [Anuncios] LACNIC III Message-ID: <12e801c263f4$3d2c5200$c6b22543@repligate> ?? What /8s are allocated to LACNIC ??...at what cost ? http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adriana Rivero" To: Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 12:41 PM Subject: [Anuncios] LACNIC III > > > LACNIC anuncia que solamente a los efectos de la asistencia al LACNIC III a > realizarse en Ciudad de M?xico los d?as 11 y 12 de noviembre, todas las > organizaciones latinoamericanas miembros de ARIN ser?n considerados miembros > de LACNIC. Por consiguiente, estar?n exonerados del pago para asistir a este > evento. > > > LACNIC III > Comit? de Organizaci?n > > > _______________________________________________ > Anuncios mailing list > Anuncios at lacnic.org > http://www.lacnic.org/mailman/listinfo/anuncios From mailinglist at comentum.com Tue Sep 24 13:47:15 2002 From: mailinglist at comentum.com (Mailing List) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 10:47:15 -0700 Subject: Policy Proposal 2002-3 Message-ID: <009a01c263f2$6b5715e0$0800a8c0@Bobcat> The micro allocation of /21 /24 to multihome should be implemented for the following reasons: 1. The policy of qualify for ARIN's minimum allocation requirement or receive IP's from your upstream provider has a direct correlation with the size of a company. Generally a company that uses /20 IP allocation, has a larger network and customer base, therefore they would be considered in the category of large size companies. This policy currently discriminates, puts a small business at a disadvantage and promotes and helps to monopolize large ISP's and upstream providers. 2. Currently, many ISP's and upstream providers are in bankruptcy and/or have gone out of business; therefore, getting IP's from upstream providers is no longer a good solution since small businesses will have the disadvantage of returning and re-numbering their IP's. 3. Once a small business obtains IP addresses from their upstream providers, upstream providers are able to hold that small business "hostage" and increase their rate without any consequences, because the level of difficulty to move to another upstream provider could put the small company out of business. 4. The global routing table and its minimum allocation requirement must be investigated by several third party technology companies, who are non-partial and do not benefit from ARIN's decision in any way. They could determine what is the best minimum requirement in order for the Internet to run at its optimum and without any routing table problems. 5. ARIN's current policy of the minimum requirement of /20 addresses promotes IP usage and reduces the ability to conserve IPs, such as virtual hosting, for web sites. Companies now have to come up with wasteful uses for IPs that they don't really need, just to qualify for the current policy minimum. 6. ARIN's current policy automatically qualifies a multihome organization to obtain an AS number. There isn't any minimum IP requirement to obtain AS numbers and AS numbers have the direct effect of increasing the global routi ng table. 7. Regarding the global routing table issue, memory is very inexpensive now, and Cisco is introducing new router models with a larger D-RAM size, that are reasonably priced and affordable by small businesses. 8. Theoretically, there are 4 billion IPv4 addresses available. Out of that, only a small fraction of them (Approx. 100 million) are being used and approx. 2.3 billion are being allocated. This makes the current minimum allocation policy not practical. Large organizations are sitting on an exorbitant amount of IP addresses that they are not using and/or not capable of ever being used. As an example, there is a company that owns approximately 7 million IP addresses and has roughly 153,000 employees (employees as of Nov, 1999). How do they justify for receiving such large IP space, when a small business is not allocated any IP space. From memsvcs at arin.net Tue Sep 24 14:01:25 2002 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 14:01:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Policy Proposal 2002-5 Message-ID: ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in Eugene, Oregon, scheduled for October 30-31, 2002. All feedback received on the mailing list about this policy proposal will be included in the discussions that will take place at the upcoming Public Policy Meeting. This policy proposal discussion will take place on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ppml at arin.net). Subscription information is available at http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ### * ### Policy Proposal 2002-5: Amnesty Requests If an organization, whether a member or non-member, ISP or end-user, relinquishes a block of address space to ARIN, they shall be allowed to select any smaller size of block in exchange, and shall not be required to justify their use of that space. That is, anyone should be able to decrease their use of address space at any time without fear of the effects of a utilization audit. ARIN staff shall, at their discretion, determine whether the smaller replacement block shall be a subnet of the returned block, or a block allocated from some different range. In the case of an organization name change for address resource records, ARIN's normal transfer policies will apply. ###END### From memsvcs at arin.net Tue Sep 24 13:58:11 2002 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 13:58:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Policy Proposal 2002-4 Message-ID: ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in Eugene, Oregon, scheduled for October 30-31, 2002. All feedback received on the mailing list about this policy proposal will be included in the discussions that will take place at the upcoming Public Policy Meeting. This policy proposal discussion will take place on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ppml at arin.net). Subscription information is available at http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ### * ### Policy Proposal 2002-4: Bulk Copies of ARIN WHOIS Policy 2001-7 allows organizations to obtain bulk copies of ARIN WHOIS data, minus point of contact information, after signing ARIN's acceptable use policy for bulk WHOIS data. Many organizations require the bulk WHOIS data, and also need the accompanying point of contact information. Although the point of contact information is not currently supplied with the bulk copies of ARIN WHOIS data, it is openly available by submitting individual queries to ARIN's WHOIS servers. Organizations may currently obtain bulk copies of WHOIS data from APNIC and RIPE NCC that include point of contact information, but continue to have to obtain the data from ARIN's WHOIS services, one query at a time. The following policy is proposed: ARIN will provide a bulk copy of WHOIS output, including point of contact information, on the ARIN site for download by any organization that wishes to obtain the data providing they agree to ARIN's acceptable use policy. It is also proposed the existing ARIN Bulk WHOIS Acceptable Use Policy... ##The ARIN WHOIS data is for Internet operational or technical research purposes pertaining to Internet operations only. It may not be used for advertising, direct marketing, marketing research, or similar purposes. Use of the ARIN WHOIS data for these activities is explicitly forbidden. ARIN requests to be notified of any such activities or suspicions thereof.## ...be applied in the implementation of any policy that results from this policy proposal with the addition of the following text: Redistributing bulk ARIN WHOIS data is explicitly forbidden. It is permissible to publish the data an individual query or small number of queries at a time, as long as reasonable precautions are taken to prevent automated querying by database harvesters. ### END ### From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Sep 24 14:06:49 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 13:06:49 -0500 Subject: INTERVIEW comments by Conrad References: Message-ID: <12f001c263f5$28172ce0$c6b22543@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Baptista" > > It sound to me like an attempt to do a fast slight of hand on existing IP > address space holders. I understand ARIN's reluctance to get into > lawsuits. But maybe a union of IP address holders should be organized to > do just that. There is no rationalization for charging anyone $2,500 for > a class C or B or A. All ARIN does is the reverse dns delegations. And > that is not worth $2,500 for a /19. > A /19 can support over 8,000 nodes (hosts, PCs, interfaces, etc.). Some companies are charging $10 per month for a Static IP and some $15 per month. A /19 should therefore yield (at one month's rental to the broker) $80,000+ in annual lease revenue. $80,000 - $2,500 would result in $77,500 per year going to ICANN. Jim Fleming 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer... http://www.netfilter.org/ http://www.analogx.com/contents/dnsdig.htm http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.yi.org http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.org http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au http://ipv8.ods.org From tomas at impsat.com Tue Sep 24 14:10:38 2002 From: tomas at impsat.com (tomas at impsat.com) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 14:10:38 -0400 Subject: INTERVIEW comments by Conrad Message-ID: <631E3B8AF304D411AF7300D0B73C5E2F0253CE8C@IMP-SERVER4> Mr. Baptista, Please read RFC1855 . Thanks, Tomas Lynch ImpSat USA > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Baptista [mailto:baptista at dot-god.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 1:43 PM > To: David Conrad > Cc: Trevor Paquette; ARIN PPML > Subject: Re: INTERVIEW comments by Conrad > > > > Di I detect an unhappy camper ??? > > On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, David Conrad wrote: > > > To be clear, I never gave an interview to Baptista (even > the idea what he is > > a reporter is laughable, see http://www.kkc.net/baptista/ or his > > 'contributions' to the ICANN mailing lists as to why). > > Well obviously that URL points to an authoritative news > source. Obviously > the reporting there challenges the standards establish by > some of the best > news sources in the industry. > > I never said you gave me an interview. But you did make > those comments. > The interview was provided by Vint Cerf who has answered the > question I > originally posed to you concerning your comments. > > > What I did do > > (stupid me) is respond to an erroneous assertion of his > (among various other > > innuendos and insinuations) on the cybertelecom mailing > list (is a mailing > > list a conference?), > > Yes you were stupid. If you don't want to be quoted it is prudent to > "shut up" and not say anything. > > > specifically, Baptista stated: > > > > >>> according to ARIN the smallest allocation has a rental > value of $2,500 USD > > >>> per year. > > maybe you might want to provide the full message. partial > quotes do not > make the content or intent of a message. > > The actual claim that was made was by a third party against you. The > claim was that during your days in asia (japan) you profited from the > allocation of IP space in the asia pacific while north > americans got IP > space for free. > > > I merely pointed out that the registries do not revoke > allocations if an > > organization does not pay the allocation fee. The fees > charged by the > > registries are for the service of allocation and are approved by the > > memberships of the registries. The fee, at least > historically, has not been > > a "rental". > > There is no history here to speak of. The fees were only recently > imposed. Furthermore your fees were not approved by those > who hold the > allocations. Your membership (ARIN) is also not very > representative of > the actual population holding allocations. > > I believe the point I was making was the fact that small organizations > with small allocations were carrying the burden of fees while large > organizations with /8 blocks were paying less per IP. Thats > significant. > > But my main question here was why did you make the statement > that ARIN was > unable to get those allocations back if no payment were made. > And Vint > Cerf - who I am beginning to suspect is a gentleman - much to > my surprise > - was able to answer the question. I'll post the URL here > when I publish > it. > > > Now, with respect to your mail: > > > > On 9/23/02 7:22 AM, "Trevor Paquette" > wrote: > > > I've always thought that IP space was a luxury, not a right. > > > > (As an aside, the assertion I was responding was in the > context of valuation > > of address space.) > > > > I tend to view IP space as niether. IP space is an > abstraction that has > > value depending on context. Address space obtained from a > regional registry > > has value in its uniqueness. ISPs can provide additional > value to those > > unique addresses by routing them. On the other hand, what > is the value of > > 10/8? > > well according to arin a /8 is less expensive per IP then a /19. Go > figure. /19 must be prettier or sometyhing silly like that. > > > IP space (v4 or v6) are merely integers. The service of > insuring uniqueness > > and routability provide value to those integers. One can > argue that both of > > those value inducing properties are luxuries and I'm sure > someone will argue > > they are rights, but that is not an argument I'd be > interested in getting > > into. > > This sounds like alot of jibberish and an attempt at rationalization. > > > > What is ARIN actively doing to RECLAIM IP space?? > > > > This question would be more appropriately directed at ARIN > staff (who will > > jump in, if what I say is in error). However, my > understanding is that > > efforts are actively underway to "clean" the database as a > first step. Of > > course, attempting to 'reclaim' address space from someone > unwilling to give > > it up (and who has contractual agreements with ISPs to > route the space) will > > be the tricky part. As roughly 45% of the address space > (according to the > > weekly routing table analysis sent out by APNIC) has not > been allocated, > > rushing into lawsuits is probably not what ARIN needs to do > right now > > (IMHO). > > It sound to me like an attempt to do a fast slight of hand on > existing IP > address space holders. I understand ARIN's reluctance to get into > lawsuits. But maybe a union of IP address holders should be > organized to > do just that. There is no rationalization for charging > anyone $2,500 for > a class C or B or A. All ARIN does is the reverse dns > delegations. And > that is not worth $2,500 for a /19. > > Also your reluctance to answer my questions is in itself questionable. > May I remind you that you are an official of ARIN and in that > capacity you > are accountable. > > But it's a free world - and if you don't want to be quoted > again my advice > to you is shut up. > > Now I will save your comment as I think they will be an excellent > insertion into a future article on IPv4 and IPv6. Thank you > for your time > and my thanks to trevor. Like a hunting dog it seem trevor > has spooked > the fox into the open and all guns are aimed. > > cheers and my pleasure > joe baptista > From senthil.kumar at attws.com Tue Sep 24 14:17:02 2002 From: senthil.kumar at attws.com (Kumar, Senthil) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 14:17:02 -0400 Subject: Policy Proposal 2002-5 Message-ID: <5C122AC9AE8AC14482D0602960AECF2A08B4B4@TX-MSG10-ALN.wireless.attws.com> If the organization is asked to relinquish a block as a result of an util audit ,then they must justify the use of the smaller block and they must be accountable for that.If an Org relinquishes a block by its own discretion ,then they should be allowed to have an opportunity to use a small block as they wish... Senthil Kumar -----Original Message----- From: Member Services [mailto:memsvcs at arin.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 2:01 PM To: arin-announce at arin.net; ppml at arin.net Subject: Policy Proposal 2002-5 ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in Eugene, Oregon, scheduled for October 30-31, 2002. All feedback received on the mailing list about this policy proposal will be included in the discussions that will take place at the upcoming Public Policy Meeting. This policy proposal discussion will take place on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ppml at arin.net). Subscription information is available at http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ### * ### Policy Proposal 2002-5: Amnesty Requests If an organization, whether a member or non-member, ISP or end-user, relinquishes a block of address space to ARIN, they shall be allowed to select any smaller size of block in exchange, and shall not be required to justify their use of that space. That is, anyone should be able to decrease their use of address space at any time without fear of the effects of a utilization audit. ARIN staff shall, at their discretion, determine whether the smaller replacement block shall be a subnet of the returned block, or a block allocated from some different range. In the case of an organization name change for address resource records, ARIN's normal transfer policies will apply. ###END### From baptista at dot-god.com Tue Sep 24 14:21:41 2002 From: baptista at dot-god.com (Joe Baptista) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 14:21:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: INTERVIEW comments by Conrad In-Reply-To: <631E3B8AF304D411AF7300D0B73C5E2F0253CE8C@IMP-SERVER4> Message-ID: On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 tomas at impsat.com wrote: > Mr. Baptista, > > Please read RFC1855 > . there's a joker in every crowd and your it - right? Just what part of the netiquette did I violate here? But thank you for bringing the joy of laughter today to us. cheers joe baptista From david.conrad at nominum.com Tue Sep 24 14:48:09 2002 From: david.conrad at nominum.com (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 11:48:09 -0700 Subject: INTERVIEW comments by Conrad In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sorry Joey, still won't be baited. If anyone with any credibility would like answers/comments, feel free to contact me and I'll be more than happy to answer, albeit preferably privately as otherwise Joey might "quote" you. Rgds, -drc On 9/24/02 10:42 AM, "Joe Baptista" wrote: [pointless and ignorant drivel] From thinman at clp.cw.net Tue Sep 24 15:58:36 2002 From: thinman at clp.cw.net (Tanya Hinman) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 15:58:36 -0400 Subject: Policy Proposal 2002-3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ### * ### No justification (other than being multihomed, having no other allocations, and returning all other non-portable space) is required for a /24. ### end ### No justification is required? I think this needs to be defined a little better. I thought all address space had to be justified. Regards, Tanya -----Original Message----- From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of Member Services Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 3:14 PM To: arin-announce at arin.net; ppml at arin.net Subject: Policy Proposal 2002-3 ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in Eugene, Oregon, scheduled for October 30-31, 2002. All feedback received on the mailing list about this policy proposal will be included in the discussions that will take place at the upcoming Public Policy Meeting. This policy proposal discussion will take place on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ppml at arin.net). Subscription information is available at http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ### * ### Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for Multihomed Networks ARIN's current minimum assignment size is a /20. The following is proposed to enable multihomed networks to obtain their IPv4 address space directly from ARIN: Multihomed networks not meeting ARIN's current allocation guidelines may receive a properly justified /21-/24 sized network provided they have no other ARIN assigned space, and return all non-portable address space within 3 months of receiving their allocation. No justification (other than being multihomed, having no other allocations, and returning all other non-portable space) is required for a /24. ### end ### From thinman at clp.cw.net Tue Sep 24 15:59:28 2002 From: thinman at clp.cw.net (Tanya Hinman) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 15:59:28 -0400 Subject: Policy Proposal 2002-3 In-Reply-To: <009a01c263f2$6b5715e0$0800a8c0@Bobcat> Message-ID: >4. The global routing table and its minimum allocation requirement must be investigated by several third party technology companies, who are non-partial and do not benefit from ARIN's decision in any way. hmmmm, I don't recall ARIN being responsible for the routing table analysis. I don't think they give out favors for the results of these reports either. Let me know if I am missing something here. And who would you say is non-partial if they are a technology company? >6. ARIN's current policy automatically qualifies a multihome organization to obtain an AS number. There isn't any minimum IP requirement to obtain AS numbers and AS numbers have the direct effect of increasing the global routi ng table. But does ARIN, or any other RIR, guarantee routability just because they give you an ASN, or an IP Address in the case of this Policy Proposal. >7. Regarding the global routing table issue, memory is very inexpensive now, and Cisco is introducing new router models with a larger D-RAM size, that are reasonably priced and affordable by small businesses. This sounds like Microsoft Windows all over again. Oh and btw, if everyone is in bankruptcy, what makes you think anyone will have the money for more memory, regardless of how much it costs. Or are we excluding the larger bankrupt companies now and limiting affordability to the small businesses?? And, I thought the routing table analysis wasn't accurate because of who was doing it?? Regards, Tanya -----Original Message----- From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 1:47 PM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: Policy Proposal 2002-3 The micro allocation of /21 /24 to multihome should be implemented for the following reasons: 1. The policy of qualify for ARIN's minimum allocation requirement or receive IP's from your upstream provider has a direct correlation with the size of a company. Generally a company that uses /20 IP allocation, has a larger network and customer base, therefore they would be considered in the category of large size companies. This policy currently discriminates, puts a small business at a disadvantage and promotes and helps to monopolize large ISP's and upstream providers. 2. Currently, many ISP's and upstream providers are in bankruptcy and/or have gone out of business; therefore, getting IP's from upstream providers is no longer a good solution since small businesses will have the disadvantage of returning and re-numbering their IP's. 3. Once a small business obtains IP addresses from their upstream providers, upstream providers are able to hold that small business "hostage" and increase their rate without any consequences, because the level of difficulty to move to another upstream provider could put the small company out of business. 4. The global routing table and its minimum allocation requirement must be investigated by several third party technology companies, who are non-partial and do not benefit from ARIN's decision in any way. They could determine what is the best minimum requirement in order for the Internet to run at its optimum and without any routing table problems. 5. ARIN's current policy of the minimum requirement of /20 addresses promotes IP usage and reduces the ability to conserve IPs, such as virtual hosting, for web sites. Companies now have to come up with wasteful uses for IPs that they don't really need, just to qualify for the current policy minimum. 6. ARIN's current policy automatically qualifies a multihome organization to obtain an AS number. There isn't any minimum IP requirement to obtain AS numbers and AS numbers have the direct effect of increasing the global routi ng table. 7. Regarding the global routing table issue, memory is very inexpensive now, and Cisco is introducing new router models with a larger D-RAM size, that are reasonably priced and affordable by small businesses. 8. Theoretically, there are 4 billion IPv4 addresses available. Out of that, only a small fraction of them (Approx. 100 million) are being used and approx. 2.3 billion are being allocated. This makes the current minimum allocation policy not practical. Large organizations are sitting on an exorbitant amount of IP addresses that they are not using and/or not capable of ever being used. As an example, there is a company that owns approximately 7 million IP addresses and has roughly 153,000 employees (employees as of Nov, 1999). How do they justify for receiving such large IP space, when a small business is not allocated any IP space. From richardj at arin.net Wed Sep 25 11:28:52 2002 From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 11:28:52 -0400 Subject: ICANN Reform Message-ID: <007801c264a8$41064b10$4a8888c0@arin.net> The following message is distributed to this mailing list on behalf of the ICANN Address Supporting Organization (ASO) Address Council (AC): On the topic if the ICANN reform http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/blueprint-20jun02.htm With reference to the RIR joint statement of June 20th http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/regional/rir-icann-statement-20020620. html and the response from the ICANN reform committee: http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/update-16sep02.htm and the discussions at the RIR meetings we would like to ask the members of this mailing list to study these statements and actively participate in the ICANN reform process. Either by: 1) Discussion on this list, and with clear advice to your ASO AC members on how you wish to advice us to act. or 2) submitting your opinion directly to the ERC http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/blueprint-20jun02.htm Best Regards, ICANN ASO AC From memsvcs at arin.net Wed Sep 25 15:22:32 2002 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 15:22:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-6 Message-ID: ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in Eugene, Oregon, scheduled for October 30-31, 2002. All feedback received on the mailing list about this policy proposal will be included in the discussions that will take place at the upcoming Public Policy Meeting. This policy proposal discussion will take place on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ppml at arin.net). Subscription information is available at http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ### * ### Policy Proposal 2002-6: Aggregation Requests If an organization, whether a member or non-member, ISP or end-user, relinquishes a group of non-aggregatable address blocks to ARIN, they shall be allowed to select a block in exchange, of no less than /24, and no more than the next greater than the sum of the blocks relinquished. For example, if an organization relinquished three /24s, they should be allowed to take either a /24, a /23, or a /22 in exchange. If all of the previous address blocks were maintained in the ARIN database without maintenance fees, the replacement space shall be as well, but if any one of the returned blocks had associated maintenance fees, then the replacement block shall also be subject to maintenance fees. ###END### From memsvcs at arin.net Wed Sep 25 15:36:48 2002 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 15:36:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-7 Message-ID: ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in Eugene, Oregon, scheduled for October 30-31, 2002. All feedback received on the mailing list about this policy proposal will be included in the discussions that will take place at the upcoming Public Policy Meeting. This policy proposal discussion will take place on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ppml at arin.net). Subscription information is available at http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ### * ### Policy Proposal 2002-7: Micro-Assignments for Multihomed Organizations Arin should reduce the current minimum IP allocation requirement to /21 -/24 if an organization is multihomed and actively using AS number(s). Arin may periodically inquire and verify that the multihomed organization is actively using AS number(s). ARIN may reclaim its IP's from organizations that no longer are multihomed and/or stop using AS number(s). The following new fee schedule for /21 - /24 should be implemented as follows (based on the current fee schedule with a smaller minimum): $400.00 per year for /23 - /24 $1000.00 per year for /21 - /22 1. ARIN's current minimum IP allocation policy has a direct correlation with the size of a company. Generally a company that uses a /20 IP allocation has a larger network and customer base, therefore they would be considered in the category of large size companies. This policy currently discriminates, puts a small business at a disadvantage and promotes and helps to monopolize large ISP's and upstream providers. 2. Currently, many ISP's and upstream providers are in bankruptcy and/or have gone out of business; therefore, getting IP's from upstream providers is no longer a good solution since small businesses will have the disadvantage of returning and re-numbering their IP's. 3. Once a small business obtains IP addresses from their upstream providers, upstream providers are able to hold that small business "hostage" and increase their rate without any consequences, because the level of difficulty to move to another upstream provider is great and could put the small company out of business. 4. The global routing table and its minimum allocation requirement must be investigated by several third party technology companies, who are non-partial and do not benefit from ARIN's decision in any way. They could determine what is the best minimum requirement in order for the Internet to run at its optimum and without any routing table problems. 5. ARIN's current policy of the minimum requirement of /20 addresses promotes IP usage and reduces the ability to conserve IPs, such as virtual hosting, for web sites. Companies now have to come up with wasteful uses for IPs that they don't really need, just to qualify for the current policy minimum. 6. ARIN's current policy automatically qualifies a multihome organization to obtain an AS number. There isn't any minimum IP requirement to obtain AS numbers and AS numbers have the direct effect of increasing the global routing table. 7. Regarding the global routing table issue, memory is very inexpensive now, and Cisco is introducing new router models with a larger D-RAM size, that are reasonably priced and affordable by small businesses. 8. Theoretically, there are 4 billion IPv4 addresses available. Out of that, only a small fraction of them (Approx. 100 million) are being used and approx. 2.3 billion are being allocated. This makes the current minimum allocation policy not practical. Large organizations are sitting on an exorbitant amount of IP addresses that they are not using and/or not capable of ever being used. As an example, there is a company that owns approximately 7 million IP addresses and has roughly 153,000 employees (employees as of Nov, 1999). What is the justification for receiving such large IP space, when a small business is not allocated any IP space? ###END### From memsvcs at arin.net Wed Sep 25 15:40:40 2002 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 15:40:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-8 Message-ID: ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in Eugene, Oregon, scheduled for October 30-31, 2002. All feedback received on the mailing list about this policy proposal will be included in the discussions that will take place at the upcoming Public Policy Meeting. This policy proposal discussion will take place on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ppml at arin.net). Subscription information is available at http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ### * ### Policy Proposal 2002-8: Privatizing POC Information ARIN's new database allows an organization to designate several points of contact for their organization and resource records. Available types of POCs are Admin, Technical, Abuse, and NOC. If an organization designates several POCs for the management of their organization or resource records in the ARIN database, they are made available via ARIN WHOIS. In order for a point of contact to conduct resource administration for a given resource record in the ARIN database, that POC does have to be associated with the resource record in the ARIN database, and therefore is listed in ARIN WHOIS. It is proposed organizations be able to designate certain points of contact as hidden from ARIN WHOIS, with the exception that, at the minimum, one point of contact be viewable. ### END ### From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Sep 25 16:31:36 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 15:31:36 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Transition affects business decisions Message-ID: <013d01c264d2$8d10bf70$d6ea2543@repligate> http://ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2002/msg00284.html From: "Bound, Jim" Transition affects business decisions "IMO we need to build whatever we build that is new in v6ops with this in mind if we are to be successful and have what we do be used by the market." ====== For many years, the IETF claimed it was not involved in setting policies that impact business success or failure. Many saw that as a hypocritcal position, meant to distract people while the IETF people engaged in activities that attempt to allow some businesses to succeed and others fail. Has the IETF changed from that approach now that it sees that IPv6 is not selling ? By the way, how does HP justify all this address space ? http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space 015/8 Hewlett-Packard Company Jul 94 016/8 Digital Equipment Corporation Nov 94 ========================================== Jim Fleming 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer... http://www.netfilter.org/ http://www.analogx.com/contents/dnsdig.htm http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.yi.org http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.org http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au http://ipv8.ods.org From ahp at hilander.com Wed Sep 25 16:42:33 2002 From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 14:42:33 -0600 Subject: [ppml] Re: ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-7 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2147483647.1032964953@macleod.hilander.com> NOTE: I am responding to some of the issues raised in the policy proposal not to a single person (ie, whoever submitted the proposal) but in the interest of continuing a dialog on the subject. > Arin should reduce the current minimum IP allocation requirement to /21 > -/24 if an organization is multihomed and actively using AS number(s). > Arin may periodically inquire and verify that the multihomed organization > is actively using AS number(s). ARIN may reclaim its IP's from > organizations that no longer are multihomed and/or stop using AS > number(s). > > The following new fee schedule for /21 - /24 should be implemented as > follows (based on the current fee schedule with a smaller minimum): > $400.00 per year for /23 - /24 > $1000.00 per year for /21 - /22 I do not believe the proposed fees would be fair to either ARIN or other ARIN members. I don't think the amount of work that the ARIN staff would need to perform for allocations of this size jibes with the proposed fees. > > 1. ARIN's current minimum IP allocation policy has a direct correlation > with the size of a company. Generally a company that uses a /20 IP > allocation has a larger network and customer base, therefore they would be > considered in the category of large size companies. This policy currently > discriminates, puts a small business at a disadvantage and promotes and > helps to monopolize large ISP's and upstream providers. ARIN's policies were not crafted to discriminate against anybody. They were crafted to help manage the resources that ARIN has responsibility for (autonomous system numbers and IP addresses). Contrary to your point below, the issue with routing table size relates to routing table processing (CPU cycles), and not memory. > > 2. Currently, many ISP's and upstream providers are in bankruptcy and/or > have gone out of business; therefore, getting IP's from upstream > providers is no longer a good solution since small businesses will have > the disadvantage of returning and re-numbering their IP's. > > 3. Once a small business obtains IP addresses from their upstream > providers, upstream providers are able to hold that small business > "hostage" and increase their rate without any consequences, because the > level of difficulty to move to another upstream provider is great and > could put the small company out of business. Renumbering is not always trivial, but at the same time it is not impossibly hard either. Things like DNS and DHCP make the process bearable, especially for small amounts of address space. > > 4. The global routing table and its minimum allocation requirement must > be investigated by several third party technology companies, who are > non-partial and do not benefit from ARIN's decision in any way. They > could determine what is the best minimum requirement in order for the > Internet to run at its optimum and without any routing table problems. Given this suggestion I don't see why a specific minimum of /24 was proposed in this proposal. However, ARIN is a perfect example of a body that does not benefit from ARIN's policies. ARIN has an advisory council that is elected by its membership and whose job it is to consider the technical impact of ARIN's policies. In the interest of disclosure, I currently sit on the ARIN AC. > > 5. ARIN's current policy of the minimum requirement of /20 addresses > promotes IP usage and reduces the ability to conserve IPs, such as > virtual hosting, for web sites. Companies now have to come up with > wasteful uses for IPs that they don't really need, just to qualify for the > current policy minimum. I don't think I follow this. Is the assertion that if IP addresses are essentially available with no requirements that people will use them more wisely? I believe history has shown that engineers typically do what is easiest, and often it is easiest to be wasteful with address space reguardless of the available supply. > > 6. ARIN's current policy automatically qualifies a multihome > organization to obtain an AS number. There isn't any minimum IP > requirement to obtain AS numbers and AS numbers have the direct effect of > increasing the global routing table. AS numbers are merely identifiers on routes, an increase in the number of AS numbers allocated does not cause the routing table size to increase. > > 7. Regarding the global routing table issue, memory is very inexpensive > now, and Cisco is introducing new router models with a larger D-RAM size, > that are reasonably priced and affordable by small businesses. This is 100% correct, and 100% irrelevant. Memory is no longer the limiting factor with respect to routing table size (it used to be, back in the AGS/7000 days). Now the issue is the number of CPU cycles it takes for a router to generate its own view of the Internet based on the BGP feeds it receives. > > 8. Theoretically, there are 4 billion IPv4 addresses available. Out of > that, only a small fraction of them (Approx. 100 million) are being used > and approx. 2.3 billion are being allocated. This makes the current > minimum allocation policy not practical. Large organizations are sitting > on an exorbitant amount of IP addresses that they are not using and/or not > capable of ever being used. As an example, there is a company that owns > approximately 7 million IP addresses and has roughly 153,000 employees > (employees as of Nov, 1999). What is the justification for receiving > such large IP space, when a small business is not allocated any IP space? Poor historical allocation policies should not be justification for making the same mistakes all over again. Alec -- Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com Chief Technology Officer Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Sep 25 17:01:59 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 16:01:59 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Re: ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-7 References: Message-ID: <015701c264d6$cbc74b90$d6ea2543@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Member Services" > > The following new fee schedule for /21 - /24 should be implemented as > follows (based on the current fee schedule with a smaller minimum): > $400.00 per year for /23 - /24 > $1000.00 per year for /21 - /22 > 1. Companies regularly charge consumers $10 to $15 per month for ONE IPv4 static address. 2. It is common in the real estate business in meat space for a broker to take one month's rent as a fee. 3. A /24 allows over 250 nodes (hosts, PCs, etc.) to be addressed. 4. At $12.50 per month that is $3,125 per month in revenue from address leasing. 5. Applying #2 and #4, one would assume the annual lease fee would be about $3,000, not $400. Does ICANN get the balance of the $3,000 - $400 = $2,600 per year per /24 ?....or the U.S. Government...? Also...what is LACNIC paying the U.S. Government for address space ? http://lacnic.net/en/transition.html Jim Fleming 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer... http://www.netfilter.org/ http://www.analogx.com/contents/dnsdig.htm http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.yi.org http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.org http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au http://ipv8.ods.org From moraleja at racsa.co.cr Wed Sep 25 17:11:02 2002 From: moraleja at racsa.co.cr (moraleja) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 16:11:02 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Transition affects business decisions References: <013d01c264d2$8d10bf70$d6ea2543@repligate> Message-ID: <004701c264d8$1d6b9ae0$f2c9fea9@r9k2n2> ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Fleming To: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; Bound, Jim Cc: Ron Sherwood ; Richard J. Sexton ; Richard Henderson ; ; ; Joe Baptista ; ; ; ; ; ; Bruce Young ; Joop Teernstra ; @quasar Internet Solutions, Inc. ; ; Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 3:31 PM Subject: [ppml] Transition affects business decisions > http://ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2002/msg00284.html > From: "Bound, Jim" > Transition affects business decisions > "IMO we need to build whatever we build that is new in v6ops with this in mind if we are to be successful and have what we do be > used by the market." > > ====== > > For many years, the IETF claimed it was not involved in setting policies that impact business success or failure. > Many saw that as a hypocritcal position, meant to distract people while the IETF people engaged in activities > that attempt to allow some businesses to succeed and others fail. Has the IETF changed from that approach > now that it sees that IPv6 is not selling ? > > By the way, how does HP justify all this address space ? > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > 015/8 Hewlett-Packard Company Jul 94 > 016/8 Digital Equipment Corporation Nov 94 > ========================================== > > Jim Fleming > 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer... > http://www.netfilter.org/ > http://www.analogx.com/contents/dnsdig.htm > http://ipv8.dyndns.tv > http://ipv8.yi.org > http://ipv8.dyns.cx > http://ipv8.no-ip.com > http://ipv8.no-ip.org > http://ipv8.no-ip.biz > http://ipv8.no-ip.info > http://ipv8.myip.us > http://ipv8.dyn.ee > http://ipv8.community.net.au > http://ipv8.ods.org > > From moraleja at racsa.co.cr Wed Sep 25 17:10:47 2002 From: moraleja at racsa.co.cr (moraleja) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 16:10:47 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Re: ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-7 References: <015701c264d6$cbc74b90$d6ea2543@repligate> Message-ID: <004201c264d8$11676ee0$f2c9fea9@r9k2n2> ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Fleming To: ; ; ; ; ; Member Services ; ; Cc: ; ; ; ; ; ; Ron Sherwood ; Richard J. Sexton ; Richard Henderson ; ; ; Joe Baptista ; ; ; ; ; ; Bruce Young ; Joop Teernstra ; @quasar Internet Solutions, Inc. ; Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 4:01 PM Subject: [ppml] Re: ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-7 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Member Services" > > > > The following new fee schedule for /21 - /24 should be implemented as > > follows (based on the current fee schedule with a smaller minimum): > > $400.00 per year for /23 - /24 > > $1000.00 per year for /21 - /22 > > > > 1. Companies regularly charge consumers $10 to $15 per month for ONE IPv4 static address. > > 2. It is common in the real estate business in meat space for a broker to take one month's rent as a fee. > > 3. A /24 allows over 250 nodes (hosts, PCs, etc.) to be addressed. > > 4. At $12.50 per month that is $3,125 per month in revenue from address leasing. > > 5. Applying #2 and #4, one would assume the annual lease fee would be about $3,000, not $400. > > Does ICANN get the balance of the $3,000 - $400 = $2,600 per year per /24 ?....or the U.S. Government...? > > Also...what is LACNIC paying the U.S. Government for address space ? > http://lacnic.net/en/transition.html > > > > Jim Fleming > 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer... > http://www.netfilter.org/ > http://www.analogx.com/contents/dnsdig.htm > http://ipv8.dyndns.tv > http://ipv8.yi.org > http://ipv8.dyns.cx > http://ipv8.no-ip.com > http://ipv8.no-ip.org > http://ipv8.no-ip.biz > http://ipv8.no-ip.info > http://ipv8.myip.us > http://ipv8.dyn.ee > http://ipv8.community.net.au > http://ipv8.ods.org > From mark at amplex.net Wed Sep 25 22:11:30 2002 From: mark at amplex.net (Mark Radabaugh) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 22:11:30 -0400 Subject: [ppml] RE: ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > The following new fee schedule for /21 - /24 should be implemented as > follows (based on the current fee schedule with a smaller minimum): > $400.00 per year for /23 - /24 > $1000.00 per year for /21 - /22 I think the proposed fee schedule and reduced allocation minimums is a good idea. Currently we (Amplex) advertise 4 prefixes even though we could advertise a single prefix if we used an allocation from ARIN. The current cost of $2500/year versus essentially free from our upstreams has been the main reason for not applying for our own allocation. In our case (and I suspect other smaller service providers) the current ARIN policy is increasing global routing load rather then decreasing it since we advertise the discontiguous blocks that have been allocated by our upstreams rather than a single larger 'ARIN' block. I would like to see some type of 'reservation' policy if ARIN decides to offer allocation below a /20 - something similar to the current practice of issuing a /21 while holding the /20. Perhaps trying to determine if the organization requesting space from ARIN anticipates needing additional space in the future should be part of the allocation process. A end user company (not a service provider) may have very valid reasons for wanting their own /24 allocation and not expect to need additional space in the future. A service provider on the other hand may only need a /23 at first but expects to see additional growth. It would help cut down on announcements if the remainder of the /20 that the /23 came from is 'reserved' for this provider. I realize that this can become difficult to manage -- ARIN could end up with lots of reserved 'holes' in the allocated space. I don't have a good answer for that problem... > 3. Once a small business obtains IP addresses from their upstream > providers, upstream providers are able to hold that small business > "hostage" This has been a issue for us though it was related to service quality rather than price. Mark Radabaugh Amplex 419-720-3635 From mark at amplex.net Wed Sep 25 22:16:51 2002 From: mark at amplex.net (Mark Radabaugh) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 22:16:51 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Re: ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-7 In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1032964953@macleod.hilander.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of Alec > > I do not believe the proposed fees would be fair to either ARIN or other > ARIN members. I don't think the amount of work that the ARIN staff would > need to perform for allocations of this size jibes with the proposed fees. > I'm not sure that I understand the need for the current fee structure. We are talking about managing a rather small (albeit very important) database. The current ARIN fees seem to generate quite a lot of money. Mark Radabaugh Amplex 419-720-3635 From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Sep 25 22:32:30 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 21:32:30 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Re: ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-7 References: Message-ID: <029201c26504$f6dfeca0$d6ea2543@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Radabaugh" To: Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 9:16 PM Subject: RE: [ppml] Re: ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-7 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of Alec > > > > I do not believe the proposed fees would be fair to either ARIN or other > > ARIN members. I don't think the amount of work that the ARIN staff would > > need to perform for allocations of this size jibes with the proposed fees. > > > > I'm not sure that I understand the need for the current fee structure. We > are talking about managing a rather small (albeit very important) database. > The current ARIN fees seem to generate quite a lot of money. > > Mark Radabaugh > Amplex > 419-720-3635 > > Isn't the need to pay more and more people at ARIN and ICANN ? http://www.icann-registrars.org/html%20docs/Minutes%20and%20Notes_files/Minutes%20September%2021.htm There will be additional costs in the new regime. Currently ICANN costs $6 million/year. They will add six-seven new staff in the coming years, which will cost about $1.2 million/year. We can foresee 16-18 cents/year/domain name fee for ICANN. I have urged ICANN to forewarn us about fee increases. Halloran: Fees will be 12 cents/domain/year, which will allow us 27 people at ICANN. The 25 cent a year figure would occur if they hired an extra ten people. All an.of this wuld have to go through the regular ICANN budget approval process. ============================= Also, ARIN out-sources the work. What does that cost ? http://www.nominum.com/news/press-releases/arin-pr.html Nominum Selected to Host IN-ADDR.ARPA Domain Delegations ===== Also, some of the money will end up at LACNIC. http://lacnic.net/en/transition.html "On 2 September 2002, customers in the emerging LACNIC region will begin to receive invoices from LACNIC. Monies will be payable in US dollars. All monies collected by LACNIC will be transferred to ARIN. ARIN in turn will return a portion of those monies to LACNIC to help sustain LACNIC operations. Upon final recognition, the transfer of monies will cease. The target date for the cessation of money transfer is 18 November 2002." ===== From memsvcs at arin.net Thu Sep 26 09:54:35 2002 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 09:54:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Nominations Message-ID: Nominations of candidates to run for open seats on the ARIN Board of Trustees, ARIN Advisory Council, and the ASO AC from the ARIN region will be accepted until 23:59 ET on Monday, September 30, 2002. You can find information concerning these positions and how to submit nominations on the ARIN website at: http://www.arin.net/elections/index.html Please note that members and non-members alike are eligible to submit nominations for the ASO AC seat. You must, however, be a member in good standing to submit a nomination or self-nomination for the ARIN Board and Advisory Council seats. A petition process is available to non-members. The list of candidates for each election will be posted on the ARIN website by October 10, along with bios and a form for submitting statements of support. Please contact memsvcs at arin.net if you have any questions regarding this nomination process. ARIN Member Services From ras at e-gerbil.net Thu Sep 26 12:15:03 2002 From: ras at e-gerbil.net (Richard A Steenbergen) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 12:15:03 -0400 Subject: [ppml] RE: Policy Proposal 2002-3 Message-ID: <20020926161503.GI1986@overlord.e-gerbil.net> > I would also add that the organization must continue to be multi-homed. > This should be able to be verified via BGP advertising. This is silly. If the organization has an allocated ASN, they are multihomed. > When an entity is no longer multi-homed for 1 month (anyone else suggest > another timeframe?), ARIN should reclaim that IP space and inform the > original organization and the single BGP advertising entity that they > are to stop advertising it. Any forced reclaimation project should be tied to the ASNs allocated, and is outside the scope of a microallocation policy. > My concern is that there needs to be a built in reclaimation process as > well as a provisioning process. A single micro-allocation given to an organization solely on the justification that they are multi-homed is somewhat self-limiting and self-reclaiming. If they accept microallocated blocks, they must return their provider allocated space. If they need more IPs, they must trade in that block for a regular ARIN block. There are currently over 63,000 /24s announced to the global routing table. Most of it is just polution, but one of the few legitimate uses for some of those routes is organizations who are multihomed but who do not qualify for their own block under current allocation policies. By allowing small multihomed organizations to trade in their provider allocated blocks for an ARIN block, those with a legitimate need to announce such small blocks can be separated from those without a need, and filtered accordingly. This should not require significant investments of time, money, or energy to administer. Their are only around 7500 announced ARIN-allocated ASNs, and of those I'd say only a small fraction do not currently have their own ARIN allocated space. But for those few who do not, they find themselves in a critically bad position of being completely dependant on one of their multihomed providers. I would suggest that there be no fee at all for the critically important range of /23-/24 allocations, to encourage an immediate return of provider allocated blocks for multihoming organizations who are currently punching holes in their providers' blocks, are more than likely receiving IP space for free as part of their existing service packages, and who may not otherwise have the interests of the global routing table in mind. Remember that these are small businesses, many of which are not even ISPs, and they may not be able to afford high-priced IP allocations. -- Richard A Steenbergen http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6) From JimFleming at ameritech.net Thu Sep 26 12:32:30 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 11:32:30 -0500 Subject: [ppml] RE: Policy Proposal 2002-3 References: <20020926161503.GI1986@overlord.e-gerbil.net> Message-ID: <046c01c2657a$4f9c3d10$d6ea2543@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard A Steenbergen" > > There are currently over 63,000 /24s announced to the global routing > table. Most of it is just polution, but one of the few legitimate uses for > some of those routes is organizations who are multihomed but who do not > qualify for their own block under current allocation policies. By allowing > small multihomed organizations to trade in their provider allocated blocks > for an ARIN block, those with a legitimate need to announce such small > blocks can be separated from those without a need, and filtered > accordingly. > Don't you think "announcing" will soon be a thing of the past, at least for the "core" 32-bit transport network providers ? Whitehouse Ready to Release Next Generation Internet Plan http://news.com.com/2100-1023-958159.html?tag=politech http://www.politechbot.com/p-03994.html http://www.uscryptomail.org/cybersecurity/ Note: The new plan calls for the same architecture used with IPv8 and IPv16, whereby, users do not have direct access to the (out-of-band) IPv16 network. http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200209/msg00034.html Howard Schmidt, Vice Chairman, President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board Orson Swindle, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission David J. Farber, Alfred Fitler Moore Professor of Telecommunication Systems, University of Pennsylvania School of Engineering and Applied Sciences ======================================================== http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb http://www.ilpf.org http://www.ilpf.org/conference2002/new_index.html Among the globally recognized experts who will be speaking at the conference are: Commissioner Orson Swindle of the US Federal Trade Commission; U.S. Strategy to Secure Cyberspace Howard Schmidt, Vice Chair, President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board The Vice Chair of the Board responsible for preparing the US Strategy for Securing Cyberspace, which was made public on Wednesday, September 18, 2002 http://www.ilpf.org/conference2002/schedule.html The.C at t says... Vote Early and Often... http://www.kvtek.com/ddnsservices.asp From mailinglist at comentum.com Thu Sep 26 14:28:08 2002 From: mailinglist at comentum.com (Mailing List) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 11:28:08 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Re: ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-7 Message-ID: <025b01c2658a$7641a120$0800a8c0@Bobcat> Proposal 2002-7 9/24/2002 Bernard: Arin should reduce the current minimum IP allocation requirement to /21 - /24 if an organization is multihomed and actively using AS number(s). Arin may periodically inquire and verify that the multihomed organization is actively using AS number(s). ARIN may reclaim its IP's from organizations that no longer are multihomed and/or stop using AS number(s). The following new fee schedule for /21 - /24 should be implemented as follows (based on the current fee schedule with a smaller minimum): $400.00 per year for /23 - /24 $1000.00 per year for /21 - /22 9/25/2002 Alec I do not believe the proposed fees would be fair to either ARIN or other ARIN members. I don't think the amount of work that the ARIN staff would need to perform for allocations of this size jibes with the proposed fees. 9/26/2002 Bernard: Can you explain how much work is involved for ARIN to perform allocations? If you believe it is too much work for the stated fee, our company will be glad to take over allocations of a smaller size at half the stated fees, maintaining and updating the necessary database and any work needed to process smaller allocations. As an example, NSI (Network Solutions) used to charge the public $100/two years for one domain and after competition was introduced, the prices are now as low as $16/two years. ARIN's policy should be made so it's fair to the general public not ARIN staff and its members. Your above statement of "not being fair to ARIN's members" is the clear indication that you lien toward implementing policies that benefits current ARIN's members not general public. I don't think that it's fair for ARIN to have you in their Advisory Counsel since you only have the ARIN's and its best interest in mind not the general public. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9/24/2002 Bernard: 1. ARIN's current minimum IP allocation policy has a direct correlation with the size of a company. Generally a company that uses a /20 IP allocation has a larger network and customer base, therefore they would be considered in the category of large size companies. This policy currently discriminates, puts a small business at a disadvantage and promotes and helps to monopolize large ISP's and upstream providers. 9/25/2002 Alec: ARIN's policies were not crafted to discriminate against anybody. They were crafted to help manage the resources that ARIN has responsibility for (autonomous system numbers and IP addresses). Contrary to your point below, the issue with routing table size relates to routing table processing (CPU cycles), and not memory. 9/26/2002 Bernard: I don't believe that ARIN and ICANN are elected federal administrative agencies; hence, they have been invoking the techniques of administrative law and implementing important public policies. They also have invoked the techniques of consensus; however, they do not have a working procedure in place that can determine and recognize consensus. There seems to be a small group of people and/or volunteers who are not publicly elected and they are arriving at policies that affect millions of people. There are also ethical questions such as its membership influence and a monopoly in IP address allocations. I would like to find out how ARIN has arrived at the consensus of setting the /20 minimum IP implementation. I do not believe that this policy which affected millions of people has been implemented in our ordinary way of invoking public policymaking. I guess we are dealing with technology and the public does not understant it, so they accept the policies trusting that someone arrived at it by our ordinary public consensus procedure. The public enjoys a government-free-Internet; however, if the current Internet's governing body takes advantage of its power and invokes bureaucratic methods, I believe the public would prefer that our government helps to provide fair and balanced policies. For example, anytime I have called ARIN's registration services, I've been imediately turned away by their staff; the first thing they say is: "You are not qualified to receive IPs from us; you need to get your IPs from your upstream provider." Unless the caller is WorldCom or some recognized company name, I believe that ARIN has the pre-determined decision to not provide IPs to non-familiar company names and assuming that they are a small company. It seems that no startup small company is ever going to qualify for ARIN's initial IP request. ARIN has taken the responsibilities of IP addresses and policymaking. There have been policies regarding minimum IP allocations of /20; however, I do not see any data analysis from ARIN that can explain how they arrive at this decision. Since there are restrictive policies like a minimum /20 in place today, the public should have at least the following data analysis: 1. What is the current global IPv4 usage? 2. What is the maximum capability of IPv4 usage? 3. What is the current global IP allocation? 4. How many IPs are available in each regional registries? 5. What is the growth rate per year for IPv4? 6. What are the new capabilities of our current routers? 7. What is the current usage for IPv6? 8. How many equipment manufacturers are supporting IPv6? 9. When do you predict we will be using IPv6 as our main IP usage? 10. If IPv6 should take care of our current IP shortage, why does ARIN continue with its extremly restrictive policies in allocating and promoting IPv6? I suggest inviting several non-partial technical, governmental and educational organizations that would analyze the foregoing items and make a determination that ARIN's current restrictive policy of a minimum /20 allocation is made for the best interest of our general public, not just for the benefit of ARIN's organization and its members. In regard to routers' processing power, the new routers have increased in both processing power and memory size. As an example, even within the lower end Cisco 2600 routers series, the new model 2600XM/2691 has a processing power increase of 33%-50% and holds two to four times more memory than the old 2620 model. Also, with less than $4000.00, a person could build a Linux router/server with dual Xeon or dual Athlon processors, 4 GB PC2100 DDR SDRAM and two T1 CSU/DSU cards. Are you telling us that dual Xeon processors and 4 GB PC2100 DDR SDRAM is not enough to run BGP? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9/24/2002 Bernard: 2. Currently, many ISP's and upstream providers are in bankruptcy and/or have gone out of business; therefore, getting IP's from upstream providers is no longer a good solution since small businesses will have the disadvantage of returning and re-numbering their IP's. 3. Once a small business obtains IP addresses from their upstream providers, upstream providers are able to hold that small business "hostage" and increase their rate without any consequences, because the level of difficulty to move to another upstream provider is great and could put the small company out of business. 9/25/2002 Alec: Renumbering is not always trivial, but at the same time it is not impossibly hard either. Things like DNS and DHCP make the process bearable, especially for small amounts of address space. 9/26/2002 Bernard: A small business and/or ISP could be running hundreds of sites under virtual hosts and have colocation customers who run hundreds of sites under their virtual host servers. There is no flip of a switch to change IP addresses; there is a gray area of time when customers will be out of service. The process of changing IP's requires a company to change the DNS server's IP addresses for all of their sites, then send a request to Network Solutions to make their changes; hundreds of sites will go down until the proper changes can be made. Thousands of web sites and emails would likely go down because the logistics, timing and coordination of a vast number of people is overwhelming for a small company. This process also requires the re-numbering of hosts and DNS server's data. A small ISP could lose customers when the customers find out that they are using IP's from upstream providers that are in bankruptcy and/or financial trouble, which happened in cases such as WorldCOM, XO, Global Crossing, PSInet, @home, ZipLink, ICG, CAIS, E.SPIRE, William Communications, WinStar, Northpoint, Rhythms, Flashcom and more. The small ISPs would lose customers and the big ISPs could capture the small ISPs' customers. This is one of the ways that ARIN's policy hurts small businesses. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9/24/2002 Bernard: 4. The global routing table and its minimum allocation requirement must be investigated by several third party technology companies, who are non-partial and do not benefit from ARIN's decision in any way. They could determine what is the best minimum requirement in order for the Internet to run at its optimum and without any routing table problems. 9/25/2002 Alec: Given this suggestion I don't see why a specific minimum of /24 was proposed in this proposal. However, ARIN is a perfect example of a body that does not benefit from ARIN's policies. ARIN has an advisory council that is elected by its membership and whose job it is to consider the technical impact of ARIN's policies. In the interest of disclosure, I currently sit on the ARIN AC. 9/26/2002 Bernard: As you mentioned, ARIN's current advisory council is elected by its members. This means that ARIN's current advisory counsel is partial and could implement and favor policies that benefit its members. There should be an advisory counsel and/or technical and/or government organizations that are non-partial to ARIN and/or its members who could analyze and study ARIN's policy carefully and determine its technical and/or public communications and trade impact. ARIN also claims that the Internet community voted for their current policies. I believe that ARIN's current restrictive policies, that are directly affecting general public, are implemented by a small group of people. ARIN's policymaking is not exercised within our ordinary understanding of public power and public policymaking. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9/24/2002 Bernard: 5. ARIN's current policy of the minimum requirement of /20 addresses promotes IP usage and reduces the ability to conserve IPs, such as virtual hosting, for web sites. Companies now have to come up with wasteful uses for IPs that they don't really need, just to qualify for the current policy minimum. 9/26/2002 Alec: I don't think I follow this. Is the assertion that if IP addresses are essentially available with no requirements that people will use them more wisely? I believe history has shown that engineers typically do what is easiest, and often it is easiest to be wasteful with address space reguardless of the available supply. 9/26/2002 Bernard: If the only way that small companies and/or organizations are going to be approved for ARIN's restrictive IP requirement is to use a lot of IP addresses. Small companies and/or organizations have no other choice other than to switch their web servers from "virtual hosts" to "regular host per IP" and stop using NAT in order to qualify for ARIN's minimum IP requirements. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9/24/2002 Bernard: 6. ARIN's current policy automatically qualifies a multihome organization to obtain an AS number. There isn't any minimum IP requirement to obtain AS numbers and AS numbers have the direct effect of increasing the global routing table. 9/25/2002 Alec: AS numbers are merely identifiers on routes, an increase in the number of AS numbers allocated does not cause the routing table size to increase. 9/26/2002 Bernard: Then why can't we allocate smaller IP allocations to multihomed networks that are using AS numbers? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9/24/2002 Bernard: 7. Regarding the global routing table issue, memory is very inexpensive now, and Cisco is introducing new router models with a larger D-RAM size, that are reasonably priced and affordable by small businesses. 9/25/2002 Alec: This is 100% correct, and 100% irrelevant. Memory is no longer the limiting factor with respect to routing table size (it used to be, back in the AGS/7000 days). Now the issue is the number of CPU cycles it takes for a router to generate its own view of the Internet based on the BGP feeds it receives. 9/26/2002 Bernard: In regard to routers' processing power, the new routers have increased in both processing power and memory size. As an example, even within the lower end Cisco 2600 routers series, the new model 2600XM/2691 has a processing power increase of 33%-50% and holds two to four times more memory than the old 2620 model. Also, with less than $4000.00, a person could build a Linux router/server with dual Xeon or dual Athlon processors, 4 GB PC2100 DDR SDRAM and two T1 CSU/DSU cards. Are you telling us that dual Xeon processors and 4 GB PC2100 DDR SDRAM is not enough to run BGP? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9/24/2002 Bernard: 8. Theoretically, there are 4 billion IPv4 addresses available. Out of that, only a small fraction of them (Approx. 100 million) are being used and approx. 2.3 billion are being allocated. This makes the current minimum allocation policy not practical. Large organizations are sitting on an exorbitant amount of IP addresses that they are not using and/or not capable of ever being used. As an example, there is a company that owns approximately 7 million IP addresses and has roughly 153,000 employees (employees as of Nov, 1999). What is the justification for receiving such large IP space, when a small business is not allocated any IP space? 9/25/2002 Alec: Poor historical allocation policies should not be justification for making the same mistakes all over again. 9/26/2002 Bernard: Why doesn't ARIN go to the companies that are squandering and wasting the valuable IPs that in shortage, and ask them to be returned; that would be a good policy. Yes, the allocations have already been made to all of the large and powerful companies and organizations, and now the small companies are left needing them as well. Small organizations and/or companies have little power, so its easy to implement restrictive policies that hurt them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Scott.Whipple at cox.com Fri Sep 27 12:28:03 2002 From: Scott.Whipple at cox.com (Whipple, Scott (CCI-Atlanta)) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 12:28:03 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Re: ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-7 Message-ID: <4B8EA05057E49E4F940B74AC3AEC23F40BB6A2@CATL0MS03.corp.cox.com> Proposal 2002-7 9/24/2002 Bernard: Arin should reduce the current minimum IP allocation requirement to /21 - /24 if an organization is multihomed and actively using AS number(s). Arin may periodically inquire and verify that the multihomed organization is actively using AS number(s). ARIN may reclaim its IP's from organizations that no longer are multihomed and/or stop using AS number(s). The following new fee schedule for /21 - /24 should be implemented as follows (based on the current fee schedule with a smaller minimum): $400.00 per year for /23 - /24 $1000.00 per year for /21 - /22 9/25/2002 Alec I do not believe the proposed fees would be fair to either ARIN or other ARIN members. I don't think the amount of work that the ARIN staff would need to perform for allocations of this size jibes with the proposed fees. 9/26/2002 Bernard: Can you explain how much work is involved for ARIN to perform allocations? If you believe it is too much work for the stated fee, our company will be glad to take over allocations of a smaller size at half the stated fees, maintaining and updating the necessary database and any work needed to process smaller allocations. As an example, NSI (Network Solutions) used to charge the public $100/two years for one domain and after competition was introduced, the prices are now as low as $16/two years. ARIN's policy should be made so it's fair to the general public not ARIN staff and its members. Your above statement of "not being fair to ARIN's members" is the clear indication that you lien toward implementing policies that benefits current ARIN's members not general public. I don't think that it's fair for ARIN to have you in their Advisory Counsel since you only have the ARIN's and its best interest in mind not the general public. [Whipple, Scott (CCI-Atlanta)] I think this statement is exactly why we have an organization like ARIN. Of course your company would be glad to take over allocations (as would the one I work for) it has the potential to be very profitable. That's why ARIN is a non-profit organization. You don't only have the work that is involved in updating the database but you have the actual evaluation of the requests. Making sure that the requester does actually meet the requirements. If this policy were to be passed I think the community should realize that ARIN will need to at least double the size of there registration services dept. because of the new amount of requests that would come in. I don't believe that should be a consideration in adopting this policy but if trying to decide what the fee should be that will have to be a factor. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9/24/2002 Bernard: 1. ARIN's current minimum IP allocation policy has a direct correlation with the size of a company. Generally a company that uses a /20 IP allocation has a larger network and customer base, therefore they would be considered in the category of large size companies. This policy currently discriminates, puts a small business at a disadvantage and promotes and helps to monopolize large ISP's and upstream providers. 9/25/2002 Alec: ARIN's policies were not crafted to discriminate against anybody. They were crafted to help manage the resources that ARIN has responsibility for (autonomous system numbers and IP addresses). Contrary to your point below, the issue with routing table size relates to routing table processing (CPU cycles), and not memory. 9/26/2002 Bernard: I don't believe that ARIN and ICANN are elected federal administrative agencies; hence, they have been invoking the techniques of administrative law and implementing important public policies. They also have invoked the techniques of consensus; however, they do not have a working procedure in place that can determine and recognize consensus. There seems to be a small group of people and/or volunteers who are not publicly elected and they are arriving at policies that affect millions of people. There are also ethical questions such as its membership influence and a monopoly in IP address allocations. I would like to find out how ARIN has arrived at the consensus of setting the /20 minimum IP implementation. I do not believe that this policy which affected millions of people has been implemented in our ordinary way of invoking public policymaking. I guess we are dealing with technology and the public does not understant it, so they accept the policies trusting that someone arrived at it by our ordinary public consensus procedure. The public enjoys a government-free-Internet; however, if the current Internet's governing body takes advantage of its power and invokes bureaucratic methods, I believe the public would prefer that our government helps to provide fair and balanced policies. For example, anytime I have called ARIN's registration services, I've been imediately turned away by their staff; the first thing they say is: "You are not qualified to receive IPs from us; you need to get your IPs from your upstream provider." Unless the caller is WorldCom or some recognized company name, I believe that ARIN has the pre-determined decision to not provide IPs to non-familiar company names and assuming that they are a small company. It seems that no startup small company is ever going to qualify for ARIN's initial IP request. ARIN has taken the responsibilities of IP addresses and policymaking. There have been policies regarding minimum IP allocations of /20; however, I do not see any data analysis from ARIN that can explain how they arrive at this decision. Since there are restrictive policies like a minimum /20 in place today, the public should have at least the following data analysis: [Whipple, Scott (CCI-Atlanta)] I don't personally know how the decision of a /20 came about as the minimum and would also like the history, but ARIN staff is employed to enforce the policies that have been adopted by the ARIN membership. If they told you that you don't meet the minimum requirements I don't think it's because of your organizations name it's probably because you don't meet the minimum requirements that are set right now. I think it also has to be stated that you don't have to get IP space from ARIN to be a member. Anyone that has $500 can be a member. No matter what the size of your company you only get one vote on policy issues so the largest ISP has no more influence then Ma and Pa ISP when it comes to creating or modifying ARIN guidelines. 1. What is the current global IPv4 usage? 2. What is the maximum capability of IPv4 usage? 3. What is the current global IP allocation? 4. How many IPs are available in each regional registries? 5. What is the growth rate per year for IPv4? 6. What are the new capabilities of our current routers? 7. What is the current usage for IPv6? 8. How many equipment manufacturers are supporting IPv6? 9. When do you predict we will be using IPv6 as our main IP usage? 10. If IPv6 should take care of our current IP shortage, why does ARIN continue with its extremly restrictive policies in allocating and promoting IPv6? [Whipple, Scott (CCI-Atlanta)] I'm sure you can find the answer to any of these questions if you dig hard enough. If you would like to see them on the ARIN website then I think that is a valid request. I also think some of these questions may be debatable and I would only be for putting information on ARIN's website that are true statistics. I suggest inviting several non-partial technical, governmental and educational organizations that would analyze the foregoing items and make a determination that ARIN's current restrictive policy of a minimum /20 allocation is made for the best interest of our general public, not just for the benefit of ARIN's organization and its members. [Whipple, Scott (CCI-Atlanta)] I'm sure the general public has no clue who ARIN is and if they do they have all the right in the world to be a member. I don't think there is such thing as a non-partial technical, or governmental organization that's why policies and guidelines are proposed by the ARIN membership who should be the people that the policies directly effect. I would like to say again that anyone can be an ARIN member so my suggestion would be if ARIN policies have an affect on your organization then pay the $500 and become a member so you can vote. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9/24/2002 Bernard: 4. The global routing table and its minimum allocation requirement must be investigated by several third party technology companies, who are non-partial and do not benefit from ARIN's decision in any way. They could determine what is the best minimum requirement in order for the Internet to run at its optimum and without any routing table problems. 9/25/2002 Alec: Given this suggestion I don't see why a specific minimum of /24 was proposed in this proposal. However, ARIN is a perfect example of a body that does not benefit from ARIN's policies. ARIN has an advisory council that is elected by its membership and whose job it is to consider the technical impact of ARIN's policies. In the interest of disclosure, I currently sit on the ARIN AC. 9/26/2002 Bernard: As you mentioned, ARIN's current advisory council is elected by its members. This means that ARIN's current advisory counsel is partial and could implement and favor policies that benefit its members. There should be an advisory counsel and/or technical and/or government organizations that are non-partial to ARIN and/or its members who could analyze and study ARIN's policy carefully and determine its technical and/or public communications and trade impact. ARIN also claims that the Internet community voted for their current policies. I believe that ARIN's current restrictive policies, that are directly affecting general public, are implemented by a small group of people. ARIN's policymaking is not exercised within our ordinary understanding of public power and public policymaking. [Whipple, Scott (CCI-Atlanta)] Again this entire reasoning doesn't have much weight because anyone in the general public that has concern about ARIN policies can be involved in shaping them. I also believe that if ARIN did start to assign blocks longer then a /20 you would find that there are many ISPs that would filter them out. This is not something that can be voted on or discussed. It is up to the individual organizations on how they set up there filters. I'm not sure how it would help companies to get smaller blocks that probably are not going to be routable anyway. I know routing is not an ARIN concern but I think if we are going to change an existing guideline we should take it in consideration. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9/24/2002 Bernard: 5. ARIN's current policy of the minimum requirement of /20 addresses promotes IP usage and reduces the ability to conserve IPs, such as virtual hosting, for web sites. Companies now have to come up with wasteful uses for IPs that they don't really need, just to qualify for the current policy minimum. 9/26/2002 Alec: I don't think I follow this. Is the assertion that if IP addresses are essentially available with no requirements that people will use them more wisely? I believe history has shown that engineers typically do what is easiest, and often it is easiest to be wasteful with address space reguardless of the available supply. 9/26/2002 Bernard: If the only way that small companies and/or organizations are going to be approved for ARIN's restrictive IP requirement is to use a lot of IP addresses. Small companies and/or organizations have no other choice other than to switch their web servers from "virtual hosts" to "regular host per IP" and stop using NAT in order to qualify for ARIN's minimum IP requirements. [Whipple, Scott (CCI-Atlanta)] Your example here doesn't really help your cause. At this point it is not against ARIN policy to do IP based web hosting. If there are organizations that have wasteful IP practices to get their initial block from ARIN it should directly effect the ISP that organization is getting space from. ARIN should also be able to see wasteful IP practices when evaluating an organizations request. I would think that this has a direct relation to an approval for an initial block as well as for an additional block to an ISP that continues to give space to a wasteful organization. 9/24/2002 Bernard: 8. Theoretically, there are 4 billion IPv4 addresses available. Out of that, only a small fraction of them (Approx. 100 million) are being used and approx. 2.3 billion are being allocated. This makes the current minimum allocation policy not practical. Large organizations are sitting on an exorbitant amount of IP addresses that they are not using and/or not capable of ever being used. As an example, there is a company that owns approximately 7 million IP addresses and has roughly 153,000 employees (employees as of Nov, 1999). What is the justification for receiving such large IP space, when a small business is not allocated any IP space? 9/25/2002 Alec: Poor historical allocation policies should not be justification for making the same mistakes all over again. 9/26/2002 Bernard: Why doesn't ARIN go to the companies that are squandering and wasting the valuable IPs that in shortage, and ask them to be returned; that would be a good policy. Yes, the allocations have already been made to all of the large and powerful companies and organizations, and now the small companies are left needing them as well. and/or companies have little power, so its easy to implement restrictive policies that hurt them. [Whipple, Scott (CCI-Atlanta)] I agree with there being organizations out there that have large amounts of IP space that is not being used. I also would like to see ARIN undertake a reclamation project but I think at this point all they could do is ask companies to give space back. ARIN does not have the teeth it would need to be able to go and take unused space back. I find it very difficult to believe that when this policy was initially created that it was intended to hurt smaller companies which to me is what you are insinuating. I also think everyone should remember that ARIN is the body in which the internet community has created. This means that the internet community has the ability to change any of the current guidelines but I think if you want to change a current guideline you should base the argument on technical issues and how it would be beneficial to the internet community to have this new policy instead of arguing how the current policies are detrimental. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com Fri Sep 27 13:58:53 2002 From: John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com (Sweeting, John) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 13:58:53 -0400 Subject: [ppml] RE: Policy Proposal 2002-3 Message-ID: <170E5E7779BCD3118C2A0008C7F40C1904DD3E46@usresms03.teleglobe.com> I tend to agree with you Tanya, the wording could be better since there actually is justification required: being multihomed and having no other allocations and then there is the requirement of returning all other non-portable space. -----Original Message----- From: Tanya Hinman [mailto:thinman at clp.cw.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 3:59 PM To: Member Services; arin-announce at arin.net; ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: Policy Proposal 2002-3 ### * ### No justification (other than being multihomed, having no other allocations, and returning all other non-portable space) is required for a /24. ### end ### No justification is required? I think this needs to be defined a little better. I thought all address space had to be justified. Regards, Tanya -----Original Message----- From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of Member Services Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 3:14 PM To: arin-announce at arin.net; ppml at arin.net Subject: Policy Proposal 2002-3 ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in Eugene, Oregon, scheduled for October 30-31, 2002. All feedback received on the mailing list about this policy proposal will be included in the discussions that will take place at the upcoming Public Policy Meeting. This policy proposal discussion will take place on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ppml at arin.net). Subscription information is available at http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ### * ### Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for Multihomed Networks ARIN's current minimum assignment size is a /20. The following is proposed to enable multihomed networks to obtain their IPv4 address space directly from ARIN: Multihomed networks not meeting ARIN's current allocation guidelines may receive a properly justified /21-/24 sized network provided they have no other ARIN assigned space, and return all non-portable address space within 3 months of receiving their allocation. No justification (other than being multihomed, having no other allocations, and returning all other non-portable space) is required for a /24. ### end ### From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Sep 27 14:34:19 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 13:34:19 -0500 Subject: [ppml] "...all address space had to be justified..." ??? References: <170E5E7779BCD3118C2A0008C7F40C1904DD3E46@usresms03.teleglobe.com> Message-ID: <070001c26654$7edec590$d6ea2543@repligate> > -----Original Message----- > From: Tanya Hinman [mailto:thinman at clp.cw.net] > ### * ### > No justification (other than being multihomed, having no other > allocations, and returning all other non-portable space) is required > for a /24. > ### end ### > > > No justification is required? I think this needs to be defined a little > better. I thought all address space had to be justified. > Really ? http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space 003/8 General Electric Company May 94 004/8 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. Dec 92 005/8 IANA - Reserved Jul 95 006/8 Army Information Systems Center Feb 94 007/8 IANA - Reserved Apr 95 008/8 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. Dec 92 009/8 IBM Aug 92 010/8 IANA - Private Use Jun 95 011/8 DoD Intel Information Systems May 93 012/8 AT&T Bell Laboratories Jun 95 013/8 Xerox Corporation Sep 91 014/8 IANA - Public Data Network Jun 91 015/8 Hewlett-Packard Company Jul 94 016/8 Digital Equipment Corporation Nov 94 017/8 Apple Computer Inc. Jul 92 018/8 MIT Jan 94 019/8 Ford Motor Company May 95 020/8 Computer Sciences Corporation Oct 94 ===== Jim Fleming 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer... http://www.netfilter.org/ http://www.analogx.com/contents/dnsdig.htm http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.yi.org http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.org http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au http://ipv8.ods.org From beran at beranpeter.com Mon Sep 30 14:14:53 2002 From: beran at beranpeter.com (Beran) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:14:53 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal for Micro-Assignments for End-user Organizations IPV4 Message-ID: Statement of Proposed Policy: To allow Micro-Assignments for End-user Organizations. Specific language to be adopted: Keep all the current IPV4 End-user Assignments language except to change in third paragraph change /20 to /24: The new paragraph will read: The minimum block of IP address space assigned by ARIN is a /24. If assignments smaller than /24 are needed, end-users should contact their upstream provider. Arguments for the Proposal and General Discussion of the Issue: I started a company in 1991 and was able to obtain a Class C license. Our company did well and grew to more than a hundred employees. I left the company last year and started a new company. My old company still has the class C that I registered. (/24) My new company is growing but does not support the use of a /20 address space. My ISP is charging me for every ip address I use. I never paid for ip address in the past and do not feel good about it now. We should have a policy in place that supports small businesses and does not promote ripping off the small business's by the letting the large ISP's charge for each IP used. Proposed Timetable for Implementation: To be voted October 30th for immediate implementation. Please contact me if you have any questions, Beran Beran Peter Beran at beranpeter.com