From info at arin.net Wed Oct 1 11:35:41 2014 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 11:35:41 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] ARIN Community Consultation on the ICG RFP Response Process Message-ID: <542C1F4D.9040004@arin.net> As a part of the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) system, the ARIN community has been called to contribute to the ongoing global multistakeholder discussion on the IANA Stewardship Transition. The feedback from the ARIN community will be part of the contribution provided by the Number Resource Organization (NRO) to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) in response to their recent ?Request for Proposals (RFP) for ?IANA? Stewardship Transition Proposal?.? https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en ?????? We would like to know how you believe ARIN should be facilitating this dialog, and propose the following process for developing the response from the ARIN region: 1) Discussion in the ARIN community will take place during ARIN 34 and through a mailing list consultation from 13 October to 27 October. 2) ARIN will conduct a community survey and publish the results to aid in the discussion. The survey will be open for one week, 13 - 20 October, and those results will be posted by 24 October 2014. 3) After the initial community discussion ends on 27 October, the ARIN staff will produce a draft summary document by 3 November for community review. The document will note consensus positions and any significant points where consensus could not be achieved. 4) After community review, a final document (including any material comments from the review) will be sent to the Number Resource Organization for compilation into a single RIR community input to the ICG. In this community consultation, ARIN seeks your input on the following questions: 1. Is the process outlined above for response development in the ARIN region sufficient or are any changes needed? 2. Do we need a dedicated mailing list in the ARIN region for conducting the community discussion on this topic, or does an existing ARIN list such as arin-consult, arin-discuss, or PPML suffice? If a new list is created for this purpose, should it be prepopulated with subscribers from another list? 3. ARIN intends to conduct a community survey from October 13 to October 20th to aid in development of a response - please review the three draft survey questions (attached) and provide any suggestions or comments for improvement. Please provide comments on the above points to arin-consult at arin.net. Discussion of the process and these points will occur on arin-consult at arin.net mailing list through 10 October 2014. If you have any questions, please contact us at info at arin.net. Regards, John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) === Draft ICG Response Survey Questions: Survey Question 1 ? Do you agree that the following are the primary priorities for the ARIN community? ? There should be minimal operational change ? the current processes for IANA operation and related policy-making are effective and allow for the participation of all interested parties. ? Any new oversight mechanism should incorporate and build on the existing RIR community, policy-making processes. ? The RIR communities are ultimately accountable for the management of those IANA functions relating to management of the global Internet number resource pools, and this should be reflected in any new oversight mechanisms. Survey Question 2 ? Do you agree that a model for IANA oversight endorsed by the ARIN community should include the following elements? ? ICANN has historically managed operation of the IANA functions well, and should continue to do so at this time. ? The IANA functions operator must be answerable and accountable to the communities that it serves. The number resource community is represented in such accountability processes by the membership-based Regional Internet Registry organizations. ? Funding arrangements to cover the staff, equipment and other operational costs associated with operation of the IANA functions should be transparent and stable. ? Efforts should be made to maintain the IANA functions as a ?bundle?, managed by a single operator. ? This does not necessarily imply a single, central point of oversight authority ? any oversight mechanism should reflect the legitimate authority of different communities for specific functions as they relate to number resources, domain names and protocol parameters. Survey Question 3 ?Does this community feel that it has no position, per se, on ICANN accountability mechanisms (other than the principle that DNS community must be satisfied with that process before any IANA transition) From emile.aben at ripe.net Thu Oct 2 05:17:49 2014 From: emile.aben at ripe.net (Emile Aben) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 11:17:49 +0200 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on New Experimental Allocation In-Reply-To: <398B250423578A4E97AFE1B8B67C686C2CE1E5A2@PDDCWMBXEX503.ctl.intranet> References: <53DFC055.8080003@arin.net> <53E492C1.20600@ripe.net> <398B250423578A4E97AFE1B8B67C686C2CE1E5A2@PDDCWMBXEX503.ctl.intranet> Message-ID: <542D183D.70809@ripe.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/08/14 19:45, Delacruz, Anthony B wrote: > I support as well. When it kicks off can we let the community know. > I'd like to check to see what we actually see. We plan to start announcing a couple of prefixes from AS12654 within the next hour for the purpose of reachability checking of prefixes longer than /24 out of ARINs 23.128.0.0/10 block: With route object: prefix pingable IP 23.128.24.0/24 23.128.24.1 23.128.25.0/25 23.128.25.1 23.128.25.240/28 23.128.25.241 Without route object: prefix pingable IP 23.128.124.0/24 23.128.124.1 23.128.125.0/25 23.128.125.1 23.128.125.240/28 23.128.125.241 best regards, Emile Aben RIPE NCC -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJULRg9AAoJEKxthF6wloMOvrEP/jTxQ37jHBOz5gZ/mRAdWaAr hiKrF+1CYpoXMK4pDIm3CQKJv87cu7hk79UJOm30pHU0fiki3Dv51wHJzE8ygG89 ki58QM3d6/3KsTWRxREUzW0Sch3+a635XWVHv1QRdtk88bdQ4RraRkPUuDZHb4Dq 1v/KjYKPBRDteTyB/a7J90AtykTboZt0xEf8nvtCGGLexgnm8jvjOz2M2Daksvoy +9pyKUObh78QWmuIKWsKb6+DS9DGQisBcFc6CRtPeKGM7t0pdsT0NdsPP3W+vya0 RgfW+QCk1FLoKJAy38rEkGA30BJECYRMW9m+P/2Ehmty9mhHdZsTqDc1yJOFEvWX FkzQ/gf7uMKZw2QE5GW1gvR94dZNu1nkbIEznkx3ZSUVikTjE+JWEbAAWURWsoul 5o42fvQTlqQypvfYY7eXSCVMe8d7QwtKjACw+VHl+Wg29LLIm8vbFAVnzdA9PN+6 uU/tygTDsW6R5PoRsGihhHWNtJMqU+e/p9HFtO6steGnjEn8KBOLwBoC1bNtASrB QLqyEWJTmru0t6KCr7DQ1ea2euZwRJ0GCgTNughBTLlV3rBQNDjfosGFXMy5mz1w J/WbX8olenwQwzWL0GP5gW7iqQguL/c/T52Q/7tgdaY6nusqTpux/Gbn2Z6z+pSw 5T2Cd/8KKTowVaOVepdO =ncPn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From msalim at localweb.com Thu Oct 2 07:36:23 2014 From: msalim at localweb.com (A. Michael Salim) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 07:36:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on New Experimental Allocation In-Reply-To: <542D183D.70809@ripe.net> References: <53DFC055.8080003@arin.net> <53E492C1.20600@ripe.net> <398B250423578A4E97AFE1B8B67C686C2CE1E5A2@PDDCWMBXEX503.ctl.intranet> <542D183D.70809@ripe.net> Message-ID: FYI I can ping only the first one at this point 23.128.24.1 from 206.223.65.0/24 subnet located in North Carolina, USA. The rest are destination unreachable. Traceroute does not get beyond our border router. Best regards Mike Salim =================================================== A. Michael Salim, VP and CTO, American Data Technology, Inc., P.O. Box 12892, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2892 USA. OFFICE: 800-525-0031 DIRECT: 919-544-4101 ext. 101 http://www.localweb.com/ (LocalWeb is a TRADEMARK) =================================================== On Thu, 2 Oct 2014, Emile Aben wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 08/08/14 19:45, Delacruz, Anthony B wrote: >> I support as well. When it kicks off can we let the community know. >> I'd like to check to see what we actually see. > > We plan to start announcing a couple of prefixes from AS12654 within > the next hour for the purpose of reachability checking of prefixes > longer than /24 out of ARINs 23.128.0.0/10 block: > > With route object: > prefix pingable IP > 23.128.24.0/24 23.128.24.1 > 23.128.25.0/25 23.128.25.1 > 23.128.25.240/28 23.128.25.241 > > Without route object: > prefix pingable IP > 23.128.124.0/24 23.128.124.1 > 23.128.125.0/25 23.128.125.1 > 23.128.125.240/28 23.128.125.241 > > best regards, > Emile Aben > RIPE NCC > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1 > > iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJULRg9AAoJEKxthF6wloMOvrEP/jTxQ37jHBOz5gZ/mRAdWaAr > hiKrF+1CYpoXMK4pDIm3CQKJv87cu7hk79UJOm30pHU0fiki3Dv51wHJzE8ygG89 > ki58QM3d6/3KsTWRxREUzW0Sch3+a635XWVHv1QRdtk88bdQ4RraRkPUuDZHb4Dq > 1v/KjYKPBRDteTyB/a7J90AtykTboZt0xEf8nvtCGGLexgnm8jvjOz2M2Daksvoy > +9pyKUObh78QWmuIKWsKb6+DS9DGQisBcFc6CRtPeKGM7t0pdsT0NdsPP3W+vya0 > RgfW+QCk1FLoKJAy38rEkGA30BJECYRMW9m+P/2Ehmty9mhHdZsTqDc1yJOFEvWX > FkzQ/gf7uMKZw2QE5GW1gvR94dZNu1nkbIEznkx3ZSUVikTjE+JWEbAAWURWsoul > 5o42fvQTlqQypvfYY7eXSCVMe8d7QwtKjACw+VHl+Wg29LLIm8vbFAVnzdA9PN+6 > uU/tygTDsW6R5PoRsGihhHWNtJMqU+e/p9HFtO6steGnjEn8KBOLwBoC1bNtASrB > QLqyEWJTmru0t6KCr7DQ1ea2euZwRJ0GCgTNughBTLlV3rBQNDjfosGFXMy5mz1w > J/WbX8olenwQwzWL0GP5gW7iqQguL/c/T52Q/7tgdaY6nusqTpux/Gbn2Z6z+pSw > 5T2Cd/8KKTowVaOVepdO > =ncPn > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From farmer at umn.edu Thu Oct 2 09:41:46 2014 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 08:41:46 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on New Experimental Allocation In-Reply-To: <542D183D.70809@ripe.net> References: <53DFC055.8080003@arin.net> <53E492C1.20600@ripe.net> <398B250423578A4E97AFE1B8B67C686C2CE1E5A2@PDDCWMBXEX503.ctl.intranet> <542D183D.70809@ripe.net> Message-ID: <8F2D4B57-665C-4B28-8971-9E9A5030BEC6@umn.edu> > On Oct 2, 2014, at 04:17, Emile Aben wrote: >> On 08/08/14 19:45, Delacruz, Anthony B wrote: >> I support as well. When it kicks off can we let the community know. >> I'd like to check to see what we actually see. > > We plan to start announcing a couple of prefixes from AS12654 within > the next hour for the purpose of reachability checking of prefixes > longer than /24 out of ARINs 23.128.0.0/10 block: > > With route object: > prefix pingable IP > 23.128.24.0/24 23.128.24.1 > 23.128.25.0/25 23.128.25.1 > 23.128.25.240/28 23.128.25.241 > > Without route object: > prefix pingable IP > 23.128.124.0/24 23.128.124.1 > 23.128.125.0/25 23.128.125.1 > 23.128.125.240/28 23.128.125.241 > > best regards, > Emile Aben > RIPE NCC The ARIN database has a pointer to https://labs.ripe.net/ for this experiment. But when I go to the referenced link I find no description of the experiment. http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-23-128-24-0-1 I'd like to see something on the labs.ripe.net page describing this experiment or a different link in the ARIN database that points to something that describes the experiment. Thanks. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Anthony.DeLaCruz at CenturyLink.com Thu Oct 2 10:32:31 2014 From: Anthony.DeLaCruz at CenturyLink.com (Delacruz, Anthony B) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 14:32:31 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on New Experimental Allocation In-Reply-To: References: <53DFC055.8080003@arin.net> <53E492C1.20600@ripe.net> <398B250423578A4E97AFE1B8B67C686C2CE1E5A2@PDDCWMBXEX503.ctl.intranet> <542D183D.70809@ripe.net> Message-ID: <398B250423578A4E97AFE1B8B67C686C2CE8AC6B@PDDCWMBXEX503.ctl.intranet> Ditto. -----Original Message----- From: A. Michael Salim [mailto:msalim at localweb.com] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 6:36 AM To: Emile Aben Cc: Delacruz, Anthony B; arin-consult at arin.net Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on New Experimental Allocation FYI I can ping only the first one at this point 23.128.24.1 from 206.223.65.0/24 subnet located in North Carolina, USA. The rest are destination unreachable. Traceroute does not get beyond our border router. Best regards Mike Salim =================================================== A. Michael Salim, VP and CTO, American Data Technology, Inc., P.O. Box 12892, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2892 USA. OFFICE: 800-525-0031 DIRECT: 919-544-4101 ext. 101 http://www.localweb.com/ (LocalWeb is a TRADEMARK) =================================================== On Thu, 2 Oct 2014, Emile Aben wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 08/08/14 19:45, Delacruz, Anthony B wrote: >> I support as well. When it kicks off can we let the community know. >> I'd like to check to see what we actually see. > > We plan to start announcing a couple of prefixes from AS12654 within > the next hour for the purpose of reachability checking of prefixes > longer than /24 out of ARINs 23.128.0.0/10 block: > > With route object: > prefix pingable IP > 23.128.24.0/24 23.128.24.1 > 23.128.25.0/25 23.128.25.1 > 23.128.25.240/28 23.128.25.241 > > Without route object: > prefix pingable IP > 23.128.124.0/24 23.128.124.1 > 23.128.125.0/25 23.128.125.1 > 23.128.125.240/28 23.128.125.241 > > best regards, > Emile Aben > RIPE NCC > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1 > > iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJULRg9AAoJEKxthF6wloMOvrEP/jTxQ37jHBOz5gZ/mRAdWaAr > hiKrF+1CYpoXMK4pDIm3CQKJv87cu7hk79UJOm30pHU0fiki3Dv51wHJzE8ygG89 > ki58QM3d6/3KsTWRxREUzW0Sch3+a635XWVHv1QRdtk88bdQ4RraRkPUuDZHb4Dq > 1v/KjYKPBRDteTyB/a7J90AtykTboZt0xEf8nvtCGGLexgnm8jvjOz2M2Daksvoy > +9pyKUObh78QWmuIKWsKb6+DS9DGQisBcFc6CRtPeKGM7t0pdsT0NdsPP3W+vya0 > RgfW+QCk1FLoKJAy38rEkGA30BJECYRMW9m+P/2Ehmty9mhHdZsTqDc1yJOFEvWX > FkzQ/gf7uMKZw2QE5GW1gvR94dZNu1nkbIEznkx3ZSUVikTjE+JWEbAAWURWsoul > 5o42fvQTlqQypvfYY7eXSCVMe8d7QwtKjACw+VHl+Wg29LLIm8vbFAVnzdA9PN+6 > uU/tygTDsW6R5PoRsGihhHWNtJMqU+e/p9HFtO6steGnjEn8KBOLwBoC1bNtASrB > QLqyEWJTmru0t6KCr7DQ1ea2euZwRJ0GCgTNughBTLlV3rBQNDjfosGFXMy5mz1w > J/WbX8olenwQwzWL0GP5gW7iqQguL/c/T52Q/7tgdaY6nusqTpux/Gbn2Z6z+pSw > 5T2Cd/8KKTowVaOVepdO > =ncPn > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From emile.aben at ripe.net Thu Oct 2 11:18:28 2014 From: emile.aben at ripe.net (Emile Aben) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 17:18:28 +0200 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on New Experimental Allocation In-Reply-To: <8F2D4B57-665C-4B28-8971-9E9A5030BEC6@umn.edu> References: <53DFC055.8080003@arin.net> <53E492C1.20600@ripe.net> <398B250423578A4E97AFE1B8B67C686C2CE1E5A2@PDDCWMBXEX503.ctl.intranet> <542D183D.70809@ripe.net> <8F2D4B57-665C-4B28-8971-9E9A5030BEC6@umn.edu> Message-ID: <542D6CC4.9010106@ripe.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 02/10/14 15:41, David Farmer wrote: > >> On Oct 2, 2014, at 04:17, Emile Aben >> wrote: >>> On 08/08/14 19:45, Delacruz, Anthony B wrote: I support as >>> well. When it kicks off can we let the community know. I'd like >>> to check to see what we actually see. >> >> We plan to start announcing a couple of prefixes from AS12654 >> within the next hour for the purpose of reachability checking of >> prefixes longer than /24 out of ARINs 23.128.0.0/10 block: >> >> With route object: prefix pingable IP 23.128.24.0/24 >> 23.128.24.1 23.128.25.0/25 23.128.25.1 23.128.25.240/28 >> 23.128.25.241 >> >> Without route object: prefix pingable IP >> 23.128.124.0/24 23.128.124.1 23.128.125.0/25 23.128.125.1 >> 23.128.125.240/28 23.128.125.241 >> >> best regards, Emile Aben RIPE NCC > > The ARIN database has a pointer to https://labs.ripe.net/ for this > experiment. But when I go to the referenced link I find no > description of the experiment. > > http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-23-128-24-0-1 > > I'd like to see something on the labs.ripe.net page describing this > experiment or a different link in the ARIN database that points to > something that describes the experiment. Apologies that that description wasn't there yet (my bad). The description is here now: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/propagation-of-longer-than-24-ipv4-prefixes cheers, Emile Aben RIPE NCC > > Thanks. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJULWzEAAoJEKxthF6wloMOzGkP/j+hDB79LzT7KtgtQp93rzRe cm2Q4N196C7+F3Y9rQdJU1w19rbOYewFQklYmoEhCR+ARnnHeLEM6RNhi0XYIPaA 3lcb8cR9v4O4KPs1WN/HMYv0hUIdMCKsZtbROuTbIj/fqDPxWjiCi/5Wvs5ujduP jpcQCzA0oGLbkqKckacgEWdhpsdbk9eS0yBQsIxDZOslVhmS1vl1q7tC17SNwJee w7nBDmJPlU2SzjhJjVQEM0yiorfh0wMuySxUDAHLOHazhKZFjc/MhHRfMeJzI7YM FvC7uDt+lzfH2BB/MA0FD16UdUrqzgrahuOTcFgoAgxgKGX3N2DO2ka4Po+FBZJK JiaSR0GsHQUty1I2OGpTBG1acbuDhgEQyQpGJ3Cwb7IIpAoX8Z4OJ+41sE+CRJFh +sVy9zxpHf5dPCFKkyZEkjfmFDbXZRGzTsyJdEwXdkaoWg+txII+InIsgzEn09Ia 4vM6AdRXOvnRQr963m64yCvXTUSnPKXhU4KfzWJCVrKUuSqyYcPAIfEmtAXo+pif rmCLe1jAgw6Xu8gSIvhwfTARe7Ih7bO/dbBg0WZFQJXmZR9giVY6j8xEHbUeUxJw 5p3yFcSgpMcm28C/G/l2nVELy5SuO+6b0aMryMdugYYE0JAiGrVueX1DzDISmi8d RjOQ9nzm5gfO4otCbOgM =16te -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ralphs at accelnet.net Thu Oct 2 11:55:08 2014 From: ralphs at accelnet.net (Ralph Sims) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 08:55:08 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on New Experimental Allocation In-Reply-To: <398B250423578A4E97AFE1B8B67C686C2CE8AC6B@PDDCWMBXEX503.ctl.intranet> References: <53DFC055.8080003@arin.net> <53E492C1.20600@ripe.net> <398B250423578A4E97AFE1B8B67C686C2CE1E5A2@PDDCWMBXEX503.ctl.intranet> <542D183D.70809@ripe.net> <398B250423578A4E97AFE1B8B67C686C2CE8AC6B@PDDCWMBXEX503.ctl.intranet> Message-ID: <031601cfde59$3d897d30$b89c7790$@net> ditto -----Original Message----- From: arin-consult-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-consult-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Delacruz, Anthony B Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 7:33 AM To: 'A. Michael Salim'; 'Emile Aben' Cc: 'arin-consult at arin.net' Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on New Experimental Allocation Ditto. -----Original Message----- From: A. Michael Salim [mailto:msalim at localweb.com] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 6:36 AM To: Emile Aben Cc: Delacruz, Anthony B; arin-consult at arin.net Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on New Experimental Allocation FYI I can ping only the first one at this point 23.128.24.1 from From andrew.dul at quark.net Thu Oct 2 12:01:01 2014 From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 09:01:01 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] ARIN Community Consultation on the ICG RFP Response Process In-Reply-To: <542C1F4D.9040004@arin.net> References: <542C1F4D.9040004@arin.net> Message-ID: <542D76BD.2010309@quark.net> On 10/1/2014 8:35 AM, ARIN wrote: > As a part of the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) system, the ARIN > community has been called to contribute to the ongoing global > multistakeholder discussion on the IANA Stewardship Transition. The > feedback from the ARIN community will be part of the contribution > provided by the Number Resource Organization (NRO) to the IANA > Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) in response to their > recent ?Request for Proposals (RFP) for ?IANA? Stewardship Transition > Proposal?.? https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en > ?????? > > We would like to know how you believe ARIN should be facilitating this > dialog, and propose the following process for developing the response > from the ARIN region: > > 1) Discussion in the ARIN community will take place during ARIN 34 and > through a mailing list consultation from 13 October to 27 October. > 2) ARIN will conduct a community survey and publish the results to aid > in the discussion. The survey will be open for one week, 13 - 20 > October, and those results will be posted by 24 October 2014. > 3) After the initial community discussion ends on 27 October, the ARIN > staff will produce a draft summary document by 3 November for community > review. The document will note consensus positions and any significant > points where consensus could not be achieved. > 4) After community review, a final document (including any material > comments from the review) will be sent to the Number Resource > Organization for compilation into a single RIR community input to the > ICG. > > > In this community consultation, ARIN seeks your input on the following > questions: > > 1. Is the process outlined above for response development in the ARIN > region sufficient or are any changes needed? > > 2. Do we need a dedicated mailing list in the ARIN region for conducting > the community discussion on this topic, or does an existing ARIN list > such as arin-consult, arin-discuss, or PPML suffice? If a new list is > created for this purpose, should it be prepopulated with subscribers > from another list? I would suggest not using PPML, but other existing lists (such as -discuss or -consult) could be appropriate. I'm not opposed to a new separate list for this discussion. We have also discussed if a global list is more appropriate rather than another RIR specific list. > > 3. ARIN intends to conduct a community survey from October 13 to October > 20th to aid in development of a response - please review the three draft > survey questions (attached) and provide any suggestions or comments for > improvement. Could ARIN describe how it intends to publicize the survey to ensure that the feedback gathered represents a significant portion of the Internet community which is interested in participating in this process? > > > === Draft ICG Response Survey Questions: > > Survey Question 1 ? Do you agree that the following are the primary > priorities for the ARIN community? > ? There should be minimal operational change ? the current processes for > IANA operation and related policy-making are effective and allow for the > participation of all interested parties. > > ? Any new oversight mechanism should incorporate and build on the > existing RIR community, policy-making processes. > ? The RIR communities are ultimately accountable for the management of > those IANA functions relating to management of the global Internet > number resource pools, and this should be reflected in any new oversight > mechanisms. > > Survey Question 2 ? Do you agree that a model for IANA oversight > endorsed by the ARIN community should include the following elements? > ? ICANN has historically managed operation of the IANA functions well, > and should continue to do so at this time. > ? The IANA functions operator must be answerable and accountable to the > communities that it serves. The number resource community is represented > in such accountability processes by the membership-based Regional > Internet Registry organizations. > ? Funding arrangements to cover the staff, equipment and other > operational costs associated with operation of the IANA functions should > be transparent and stable. > > ? Efforts should be made to maintain the IANA functions as a ?bundle?, > managed by a single operator. > ? This does not necessarily imply a single, central point of oversight > authority ? any oversight mechanism should reflect the legitimate > authority of different communities for specific functions as they relate > to number resources, domain names and protocol parameters. > While I understand the desire to limit the number of questions on a survey to improve response rate. Having multi-bullet statements about which one might agree/disagree with different parts doesn't seem like the best way to approach getting feedback from the community. I'd suggest that perhaps each bullet deserves the ability to respond independently. What type of scale or answer set is being proposed here? Yes/No? Or a range strongly disagree to strongly agree? With or without a neutral center response? > Survey Question 3 ?Does this community feel that it has no position, per > se, on ICANN accountability mechanisms (other than the principle that > DNS community must be satisfied with that process before any IANA > transition) > This seems like a somewhat leading question with lots of assumptions. I think this community would have a very different opinion on accountability mechanisms if the mechanisms chosen by the DNS community did not satisfy the concerns of the numbering community. The survey should include an open text box (not related to any question) to allow those who choose to complete the survey to provide free-form feedback. Andrew From jcurran at arin.net Thu Oct 2 12:12:57 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 16:12:57 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] ARIN Community Consultation on the ICG RFP Response Process In-Reply-To: <542D76BD.2010309@quark.net> References: <542C1F4D.9040004@arin.net> <542D76BD.2010309@quark.net> Message-ID: On Oct 2, 2014, at 12:01 PM, Andrew Dul wrote: > On 10/1/2014 8:35 AM, ARIN wrote: >> ... >> 2. Do we need a dedicated mailing list in the ARIN region for conducting >> the community discussion on this topic, or does an existing ARIN list >> such as arin-consult, arin-discuss, or PPML suffice? If a new list is >> created for this purpose, should it be prepopulated with subscribers >> from another list? > > I would suggest not using PPML, but other existing lists (such as > -discuss or -consult) could be appropriate. I'm not opposed to a new > separate list for this discussion. We have also discussed if a global > list is more appropriate rather than another RIR specific list. Not PPML - acknowledged. Do you have preference between -discuss (which is members-only), -consult, or a new list for this purpose? Also, are you recommending creation of a global list for this purpose, or use of an existing global list? If so, which one? Would use of such a list be instead of using an arin list, or in addition to? > Could ARIN describe how it intends to publicize the survey to ensure > that the feedback gathered represents a significant portion of the > Internet community which is interested in participating in this process? Announcing to arin-announce, followed by forwarding to PPML and NANOG mailing lists. Would you recommend another approach? > ... > While I understand the desire to limit the number of questions on a > survey to improve response rate. Having multi-bullet statements about > which one might agree/disagree with different parts doesn't seem like > the best way to approach getting feedback from the community. I'd > suggest that perhaps each bullet deserves the ability to respond > independently. > > What type of scale or answer set is being proposed here? Yes/No? Or a > range strongly disagree to strongly agree? With or without a neutral > center response? Yes/No Is another format preferable? Should a "no opinion" option be included? >> Survey Question 3 ?Does this community feel that it has no position, per >> se, on ICANN accountability mechanisms (other than the principle that >> DNS community must be satisfied with that process before any IANA >> transition) >> > This seems like a somewhat leading question with lots of assumptions. I > think this community would have a very different opinion on > accountability mechanisms if the mechanisms chosen by the DNS community > did not satisfy the concerns of the numbering community. Do you recommend dropping this question, or prefer different phrasing? > The survey should include an open text box (not related to any question) > to allow those who choose to complete the survey to provide free-form > feedback. Acknowledged. We will add a question 4 (Do you have any other comments or feedback) with free-form text reply field. Excellent feedback - Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From marty at akamai.com Thu Oct 2 12:21:35 2014 From: marty at akamai.com (Hannigan, Martin) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 11:21:35 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] ARIN Community Consultation on the ICG RFP Response Process In-Reply-To: References: <542C1F4D.9040004@arin.net> <542D76BD.2010309@quark.net> Message-ID: <4D6E6E66-04E8-4BF2-8A49-AA11884D34FA@akamai.com> Isn't discuss supposed to be the members list? That would mean that the general public isn't there. PPML does seem to be the right venue. Best, -M< On Oct 2, 2014, at 12:12 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 2, 2014, at 12:01 PM, Andrew Dul wrote: > >> On 10/1/2014 8:35 AM, ARIN wrote: >>> ... >>> 2. Do we need a dedicated mailing list in the ARIN region for conducting >>> the community discussion on this topic, or does an existing ARIN list >>> such as arin-consult, arin-discuss, or PPML suffice? If a new list is >>> created for this purpose, should it be prepopulated with subscribers >>> from another list? >> >> I would suggest not using PPML, but other existing lists (such as >> -discuss or -consult) could be appropriate. I'm not opposed to a new >> separate list for this discussion. We have also discussed if a global >> list is more appropriate rather than another RIR specific list. > > Not PPML - acknowledged. Do you have preference between -discuss > (which is members-only), -consult, or a new list for this purpose? > > Also, are you recommending creation of a global list for this purpose, > or use of an existing global list? If so, which one? Would use of such > a list be instead of using an arin list, or in addition to? > >> Could ARIN describe how it intends to publicize the survey to ensure >> that the feedback gathered represents a significant portion of the >> Internet community which is interested in participating in this process? > > Announcing to arin-announce, followed by forwarding to PPML and NANOG > mailing lists. > > Would you recommend another approach? > >> ... >> While I understand the desire to limit the number of questions on a >> survey to improve response rate. Having multi-bullet statements about >> which one might agree/disagree with different parts doesn't seem like >> the best way to approach getting feedback from the community. I'd >> suggest that perhaps each bullet deserves the ability to respond >> independently. >> >> What type of scale or answer set is being proposed here? Yes/No? Or a >> range strongly disagree to strongly agree? With or without a neutral >> center response? > > Yes/No > > Is another format preferable? Should a "no opinion" option be included? > >>> Survey Question 3 ?Does this community feel that it has no position, per >>> se, on ICANN accountability mechanisms (other than the principle that >>> DNS community must be satisfied with that process before any IANA >>> transition) >>> >> This seems like a somewhat leading question with lots of assumptions. I >> think this community would have a very different opinion on >> accountability mechanisms if the mechanisms chosen by the DNS community >> did not satisfy the concerns of the numbering community. > > Do you recommend dropping this question, or prefer different phrasing? > >> The survey should include an open text box (not related to any question) >> to allow those who choose to complete the survey to provide free-form >> feedback. > > Acknowledged. We will add a question 4 (Do you have any other > comments or feedback) with free-form text reply field. > > Excellent feedback - Thanks! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From jcurran at arin.net Thu Oct 2 12:44:02 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 16:44:02 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] ARIN Community Consultation on the ICG RFP Response Process In-Reply-To: <4D6E6E66-04E8-4BF2-8A49-AA11884D34FA@akamai.com> References: <542C1F4D.9040004@arin.net> <542D76BD.2010309@quark.net> <4D6E6E66-04E8-4BF2-8A49-AA11884D34FA@akamai.com> Message-ID: <52C5C1C7-E042-45C2-8DEB-96CBB35D0D4D@arin.net> On Oct 2, 2014, at 12:21 PM, Hannigan, Martin wrote: > Isn't discuss supposed to be the members list? That would mean that the general public isn't there. "arin-discuss" is members only; I leave it to Andrew to express his preferences for mailing list and related reasoning. > PPML does seem to be the right venue. Acknowledged. We have had folks express concern about quantity of email (and being subject to discussions they didn't think they signed up for); you do consider that a concern with the use of PPML (suggesting that some other open list would be a better choice), or is it sufficiently on topic in your view? /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From farmer at umn.edu Thu Oct 2 15:23:53 2014 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 14:23:53 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on New Experimental Allocation In-Reply-To: <542D6CC4.9010106@ripe.net> References: <53DFC055.8080003@arin.net> <53E492C1.20600@ripe.net> <398B250423578A4E97AFE1B8B67C686C2CE1E5A2@PDDCWMBXEX503.ctl.intranet> <542D183D.70809@ripe.net> <8F2D4B57-665C-4B28-8971-9E9A5030BEC6@umn.edu> <542D6CC4.9010106@ripe.net> Message-ID: <542DA649.8070405@umn.edu> On 10/2/14, 10:18 , Emile Aben wrote: > On 02/10/14 15:41, David Farmer wrote: ... >> The ARIN database has a pointer to https://labs.ripe.net/ for this >> experiment. But when I go to the referenced link I find no >> description of the experiment. >> >> http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-23-128-24-0-1 >> >> I'd like to see something on the labs.ripe.net page describing this >> experiment or a different link in the ARIN database that points to >> something that describes the experiment. > > Apologies that that description wasn't there yet (my bad). > The description is here now: > https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/propagation-of-longer-than-24-ipv4-prefixes No foul, and thanks for the link that is exactly what I was looking for. -- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================ From marty at akamai.com Thu Oct 2 15:34:41 2014 From: marty at akamai.com (Hannigan, Martin) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 14:34:41 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] ARIN Community Consultation on the ICG RFP Response Process In-Reply-To: <52C5C1C7-E042-45C2-8DEB-96CBB35D0D4D@arin.net> References: <542C1F4D.9040004@arin.net> <542D76BD.2010309@quark.net> <4D6E6E66-04E8-4BF2-8A49-AA11884D34FA@akamai.com> <52C5C1C7-E042-45C2-8DEB-96CBB35D0D4D@arin.net> Message-ID: On Oct 2, 2014, at 12:44 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 2, 2014, at 12:21 PM, Hannigan, Martin wrote: >> Isn't discuss supposed to be the members list? That would mean that the general public isn't there. > > "arin-discuss" is members only; I leave it to Andrew to express his > preferences for mailing list and related reasoning. > >> PPML does seem to be the right venue. > > Acknowledged. We have had folks express concern about quantity of email > (and being subject to discussions they didn't think they signed up for); > you do consider that a concern with the use of PPML (suggesting that some > other open list would be a better choice), or is it sufficiently on topic > in your view? > The policy is in place. Not sure why we need to have constant announcements about it. I'd argue that NANOG is the right place to coordinate prefix research since routing is their forte'. YMMV, -M< -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From farmer at umn.edu Thu Oct 2 16:35:04 2014 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 15:35:04 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on New Experimental Allocation In-Reply-To: <542D183D.70809@ripe.net> References: <53DFC055.8080003@arin.net> <53E492C1.20600@ripe.net> <398B250423578A4E97AFE1B8B67C686C2CE1E5A2@PDDCWMBXEX503.ctl.intranet> <542D183D.70809@ripe.net> Message-ID: <542DB6F8.5040506@umn.edu> I can ping both 23.128.24.1 and 23.128.124.1. I have routes for 23.128.24.0/24, 23.128.124.0/24 and 23.128.25.0/25. For some reason I can't ping 23.128.25.1, even though I seem to have a route for it. Traceroute seems to die in Amsterdam, so could the problem be on the RIPE Labs end? > farmer$ traceroute 23.128.25.1 > traceroute to 23.128.25.1 (23.128.25.1), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets > 1 infotech-cn-01-v301-3.ggnet.umn.edu (128.101.235.254) 20.161 ms 19.534 ms 7.619 ms > 2 telecomb-bn-01-v3780.ggnet.umn.edu (128.101.58.1) 2.835 ms 2.144 ms 2.178 ms > 3 telecomb-br-01-v3789.ggnet.umn.edu (128.101.58.2) 2.088 ms 2.345 ms 2.147 ms > 4 telecomb-gr-01-te-2-3.northernlights.gigapop.net (146.57.252.178) 2.533 ms 2.215 ms 2.467 ms > 5 statecob-gr-01-te-2-1.northernlights.gigapop.net (146.57.252.146) 3.091 ms 2.654 ms 2.538 ms > 6 internet2-cic-nlg.northernlights.gigapop.net (146.57.253.54) 15.752 ms 15.093 ms 15.464 ms > 7 et-9-0-0.115.rtr.wash.net.internet2.edu (198.71.45.57) 32.882 ms 33.382 ms 32.515 ms > 8 abilene-wash.mx1.fra.de.geant.net (62.40.125.17) 124.990 ms 155.735 ms 130.369 ms > 9 ae1.mx1.ams.nl.geant.net (62.40.98.129) 133.210 ms 149.910 ms 146.859 ms > 10 surfnet-gw.mx1.ams.nl.geant.net (62.40.124.158) 144.485 ms 158.031 ms 131.739 ms > 11 * * * > 12 * * * > farmer$ traceroute 23.128.24.1 > traceroute to 23.128.24.1 (23.128.24.1), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets > 1 infotech-cn-01-v301-3.ggnet.umn.edu (128.101.235.254) 2.441 ms 3.270 ms 2.716 ms > 2 telecomb-bn-01-v3780.ggnet.umn.edu (128.101.58.1) 8.074 ms 2.019 ms 7.549 ms > 3 telecomb-br-01-v3789.ggnet.umn.edu (128.101.58.2) 5.027 ms 2.474 ms 5.717 ms > 4 telecomb-gr-01-te-2-3.northernlights.gigapop.net (146.57.252.178) 5.878 ms 26.039 ms 2.865 ms > 5 statecob-gr-01-te-2-1.northernlights.gigapop.net (146.57.252.146) 3.105 ms 4.816 ms 3.656 ms > 6 internet2-cic-nlg.northernlights.gigapop.net (146.57.253.54) 15.579 ms 15.296 ms 15.060 ms > 7 et-9-0-0.115.rtr.wash.net.internet2.edu (198.71.45.57) 38.309 ms 44.413 ms 65.712 ms > 8 abilene-wash.mx1.fra.de.geant.net (62.40.125.17) 125.097 ms 149.973 ms 156.160 ms > 9 ae1.mx1.ams.nl.geant.net (62.40.98.129) 134.344 ms 148.846 ms 132.421 ms > 10 surfnet-gw.mx1.ams.nl.geant.net (62.40.124.158) 140.542 ms 134.549 ms 147.195 ms > 11 23.128.24.1 (23.128.24.1) 135.016 ms 142.176 ms 132.000 ms Hope that helps. On 10/2/14, 04:17 , Emile Aben wrote: > On 08/08/14 19:45, Delacruz, Anthony B wrote: >> I support as well. When it kicks off can we let the community know. >> I'd like to check to see what we actually see. > > We plan to start announcing a couple of prefixes from AS12654 within > the next hour for the purpose of reachability checking of prefixes > longer than /24 out of ARINs 23.128.0.0/10 block: > > With route object: > prefix pingable IP > 23.128.24.0/24 23.128.24.1 > 23.128.25.0/25 23.128.25.1 > 23.128.25.240/28 23.128.25.241 > > Without route object: > prefix pingable IP > 23.128.124.0/24 23.128.124.1 > 23.128.125.0/25 23.128.125.1 > 23.128.125.240/28 23.128.125.241 > > best regards, > Emile Aben > RIPE NCC -- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================ From andrew.dul at quark.net Thu Oct 2 18:08:36 2014 From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 15:08:36 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] ARIN Community Consultation on the ICG RFP Response Process In-Reply-To: References: <542C1F4D.9040004@arin.net> <542D76BD.2010309@quark.net> Message-ID: <542DCCE4.1040405@quark.net> On 10/2/2014 9:12 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 2, 2014, at 12:01 PM, Andrew Dul wrote: > >> On 10/1/2014 8:35 AM, ARIN wrote: >>> ... >>> 2. Do we need a dedicated mailing list in the ARIN region for conducting >>> the community discussion on this topic, or does an existing ARIN list >>> such as arin-consult, arin-discuss, or PPML suffice? If a new list is >>> created for this purpose, should it be prepopulated with subscribers >>> from another list? >> I would suggest not using PPML, but other existing lists (such as >> -discuss or -consult) could be appropriate. I'm not opposed to a new >> separate list for this discussion. We have also discussed if a global >> list is more appropriate rather than another RIR specific list. > Not PPML - acknowledged. Do you have preference between -discuss > (which is members-only), -consult, or a new list for this purpose? I withdraw my suggestion to use -discuss, I forgot that list is not open to all. As for other lists, I don't have a strong opinion, but would prefer that it not be on PPML so that the policy discussions aren't distracted by this discussion. If you forced me to rank order my preference: global-list, new-list, -consult, ppml > > Also, are you recommending creation of a global list for this purpose, > or use of an existing global list? If so, which one? Would use of such > a list be instead of using an arin list, or in addition to? I don't know which existing global list might be appropriate. I am subscribed to the 4 other RIR ICG lists now, and it seems redundant to have the same discussion in 5 different places, but maybe I'm in the minority and others would prefer regional discussions. > Could ARIN describe how it intends to publicize the survey to ensure > that the feedback gathered represents a significant portion of the > Internet community which is interested in participating in this process? > Announcing to arin-announce, followed by forwarding to PPML and NANOG > mailing lists. > > Would you recommend another approach? This plan seems appropriate. > >> ... >> While I understand the desire to limit the number of questions on a >> survey to improve response rate. Having multi-bullet statements about >> which one might agree/disagree with different parts doesn't seem like >> the best way to approach getting feedback from the community. I'd >> suggest that perhaps each bullet deserves the ability to respond >> independently. >> >> What type of scale or answer set is being proposed here? Yes/No? Or a >> range strongly disagree to strongly agree? With or without a neutral >> center response? > Yes/No > > Is another format preferable? Should a "no opinion" option be included? I personally find the answer set "Strongly Disagree/Disagree/Agree/Strongly Agree" to be the most useful to me when reviewing survey results. The "No Opinion" option to me is not answering the question. > >>> Survey Question 3 ?Does this community feel that it has no position, per >>> se, on ICANN accountability mechanisms (other than the principle that >>> DNS community must be satisfied with that process before any IANA >>> transition) >>> >> This seems like a somewhat leading question with lots of assumptions. I >> think this community would have a very different opinion on >> accountability mechanisms if the mechanisms chosen by the DNS community >> did not satisfy the concerns of the numbering community. > Do you recommend dropping this question, or prefer different phrasing? Right now, I'd recommend rephrasing or dropping the question. Perhaps it will become clearer to me next week after some additional discussion what a rephrasing might look like. >> The survey should include an open text box (not related to any question) >> to allow those who choose to complete the survey to provide free-form >> feedback. > Acknowledged. We will add a question 4 (Do you have any other > comments or feedback) with free-form text reply field. > > Excellent feedback - Thanks! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > From owen at delong.com Thu Oct 2 18:32:37 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 15:32:37 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] ARIN Community Consultation on the ICG RFP Response Process In-Reply-To: <542D76BD.2010309@quark.net> References: <542C1F4D.9040004@arin.net> <542D76BD.2010309@quark.net> Message-ID: <67D386E3-F391-4058-9D55-78F57EC213C5@delong.com> >> >> 2. Do we need a dedicated mailing list in the ARIN region for conducting >> the community discussion on this topic, or does an existing ARIN list >> such as arin-consult, arin-discuss, or PPML suffice? If a new list is >> created for this purpose, should it be prepopulated with subscribers >> from another list? > > I would suggest not using PPML, but other existing lists (such as > -discuss or -consult) could be appropriate. I'm not opposed to a new > separate list for this discussion. We have also discussed if a global > list is more appropriate rather than another RIR specific list. The problem with -discuss is that it has a limited subscriber base (-discuss is limited to ARIN members). -consult strikes me as being equally inappropriate to PPML and I think a dedicated list for this purpose is more appropriate. The availability and subscription instructions should be sent to -discuss, -consult, and -ppml, but that should be sufficient. >> === Draft ICG Response Survey Questions: >> >> Survey Question 1 ? Do you agree that the following are the primary >> priorities for the ARIN community? >> ? There should be minimal operational change ? the current processes for >> IANA operation and related policy-making are effective and allow for the >> participation of all interested parties. >> >> ? Any new oversight mechanism should incorporate and build on the >> existing RIR community, policy-making processes. >> ? The RIR communities are ultimately accountable for the management of >> those IANA functions relating to management of the global Internet >> number resource pools, and this should be reflected in any new oversight >> mechanisms. >> >> Survey Question 2 ? Do you agree that a model for IANA oversight >> endorsed by the ARIN community should include the following elements? >> ? ICANN has historically managed operation of the IANA functions well, >> and should continue to do so at this time. >> ? The IANA functions operator must be answerable and accountable to the >> communities that it serves. The number resource community is represented >> in such accountability processes by the membership-based Regional >> Internet Registry organizations. >> ? Funding arrangements to cover the staff, equipment and other >> operational costs associated with operation of the IANA functions should >> be transparent and stable. >> >> ? Efforts should be made to maintain the IANA functions as a ?bundle?, >> managed by a single operator. >> ? This does not necessarily imply a single, central point of oversight >> authority ? any oversight mechanism should reflect the legitimate >> authority of different communities for specific functions as they relate >> to number resources, domain names and protocol parameters. >> > > While I understand the desire to limit the number of questions on a > survey to improve response rate. Having multi-bullet statements about > which one might agree/disagree with different parts doesn't seem like > the best way to approach getting feedback from the community. I'd > suggest that perhaps each bullet deserves the ability to respond > independently. +1 to this? Multipart questions on a survey are almost always frustrating to me as I almost always find myself wondering how on earth I can possibly express which pieces I agree or disagree with. > > What type of scale or answer set is being proposed here? Yes/No? Or a > range strongly disagree to strongly agree? With or without a neutral > center response? Count this as a vote for the latter (scale, including a neutral center). > >> Survey Question 3 ?Does this community feel that it has no position, per >> se, on ICANN accountability mechanisms (other than the principle that >> DNS community must be satisfied with that process before any IANA >> transition) >> > This seems like a somewhat leading question with lots of assumptions. I > think this community would have a very different opinion on > accountability mechanisms if the mechanisms chosen by the DNS community > did not satisfy the concerns of the numbering community. Indeed, though my gut answer to the question as posed is ?Absolutely NOT!? We definitely have a role and a position. > > The survey should include an open text box (not related to any question) > to allow those who choose to complete the survey to provide free-form > feedback. +1 Owen From owen at delong.com Thu Oct 2 19:03:18 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 16:03:18 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] ARIN Community Consultation on the ICG RFP Response Process In-Reply-To: <542DCCE4.1040405@quark.net> References: <542C1F4D.9040004@arin.net> <542D76BD.2010309@quark.net> <542DCCE4.1040405@quark.net> Message-ID: >> >> Is another format preferable? Should a "no opinion" option be included? > > I personally find the answer set "Strongly > Disagree/Disagree/Agree/Strongly Agree" to be the most useful to me when > reviewing survey results. The "No Opinion" option to me is not > answering the question. Yes, but in a sea of questions, there may be questions that I don?t want to answer. I always appreciate when I have that option rather than having to select some response that does not necessarily express how I feel. Abstaining on a per-question basis is a perfectly valid thing and people should be allowed to do so. Owen From gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com Thu Oct 2 19:30:39 2014 From: gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com (Gary Buhrmaster) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 23:30:39 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] ARIN Community Consultation on the ICG RFP Response Process In-Reply-To: References: <542C1F4D.9040004@arin.net> <542D76BD.2010309@quark.net> <542DCCE4.1040405@quark.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 11:03 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> ... The "No Opinion" option to me is not >> answering the question. > > Yes, but in a sea of questions, there may be questions that I don?t want to answer. Depending on the exact wording of the question, sometimes N/A (not applicable) is a more appropriate answer than "No Opinion", although in this group, N/A *and* a strong opinion might be a response that some would like to offer. From marty at akamai.com Thu Oct 2 19:42:45 2014 From: marty at akamai.com (Hannigan, Martin) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 18:42:45 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] ARIN Community Consultation on the ICG RFP Response Process In-Reply-To: <67D386E3-F391-4058-9D55-78F57EC213C5@delong.com> References: <542C1F4D.9040004@arin.net> <542D76BD.2010309@quark.net> <67D386E3-F391-4058-9D55-78F57EC213C5@delong.com> Message-ID: This is a trade association that ARIN claims represents its members. I do believe -discuss is appropriate since the general public has plenty of outlets to participate in on their own. They can be easily pointed towards one. This issue has little to do with ARIN public policy. If we're going to pay for it and allow our names to be aggregated as "the commujity", we ought to have some privilege. .02 Best, -M< > On Oct 2, 2014, at 18:36, Owen DeLong wrote: > > >>> >>> 2. Do we need a dedicated mailing list in the ARIN region for conducting >>> the community discussion on this topic, or does an existing ARIN list >>> such as arin-consult, arin-discuss, or PPML suffice? If a new list is >>> created for this purpose, should it be prepopulated with subscribers >>> from another list? >> >> I would suggest not using PPML, but other existing lists (such as >> -discuss or -consult) could be appropriate. I'm not opposed to a new >> separate list for this discussion. We have also discussed if a global >> list is more appropriate rather than another RIR specific list. > > The problem with -discuss is that it has a limited subscriber base (-discuss > is limited to ARIN members). -consult strikes me as being equally inappropriate > to PPML and I think a dedicated list for this purpose is more appropriate. > > The availability and subscription instructions should be sent to -discuss, -consult, > and -ppml, but that should be sufficient. >>> === Draft ICG Response Survey Questions: >>> >>> Survey Question 1 ? Do you agree that the following are the primary >>> priorities for the ARIN community? >>> ? There should be minimal operational change ? the current processes for >>> IANA operation and related policy-making are effective and allow for the >>> participation of all interested parties. >>> >>> ? Any new oversight mechanism should incorporate and build on the >>> existing RIR community, policy-making processes. >>> ? The RIR communities are ultimately accountable for the management of >>> those IANA functions relating to management of the global Internet >>> number resource pools, and this should be reflected in any new oversight >>> mechanisms. >>> >>> Survey Question 2 ? Do you agree that a model for IANA oversight >>> endorsed by the ARIN community should include the following elements? >>> ? ICANN has historically managed operation of the IANA functions well, >>> and should continue to do so at this time. >>> ? The IANA functions operator must be answerable and accountable to the >>> communities that it serves. The number resource community is represented >>> in such accountability processes by the membership-based Regional >>> Internet Registry organizations. >>> ? Funding arrangements to cover the staff, equipment and other >>> operational costs associated with operation of the IANA functions should >>> be transparent and stable. >>> >>> ? Efforts should be made to maintain the IANA functions as a ?bundle?, >>> managed by a single operator. >>> ? This does not necessarily imply a single, central point of oversight >>> authority ? any oversight mechanism should reflect the legitimate >>> authority of different communities for specific functions as they relate >>> to number resources, domain names and protocol parameters. >> >> While I understand the desire to limit the number of questions on a >> survey to improve response rate. Having multi-bullet statements about >> which one might agree/disagree with different parts doesn't seem like >> the best way to approach getting feedback from the community. I'd >> suggest that perhaps each bullet deserves the ability to respond >> independently. > > +1 to this? Multipart questions on a survey are almost always frustrating to me > as I almost always find myself wondering how on earth I can possibly express > which pieces I agree or disagree with. > >> >> What type of scale or answer set is being proposed here? Yes/No? Or a >> range strongly disagree to strongly agree? With or without a neutral >> center response? > > Count this as a vote for the latter (scale, including a neutral center). > >> >>> Survey Question 3 ?Does this community feel that it has no position, per >>> se, on ICANN accountability mechanisms (other than the principle that >>> DNS community must be satisfied with that process before any IANA >>> transition) >> This seems like a somewhat leading question with lots of assumptions. I >> think this community would have a very different opinion on >> accountability mechanisms if the mechanisms chosen by the DNS community >> did not satisfy the concerns of the numbering community. > > Indeed, though my gut answer to the question as posed is ?Absolutely NOT!? > > We definitely have a role and a position. > >> >> The survey should include an open text box (not related to any question) >> to allow those who choose to complete the survey to provide free-form >> feedback. > > +1 > > Owen > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jcurran at arin.net Thu Oct 2 20:09:42 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 00:09:42 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] ARIN Community Consultation on the ICG RFP Response Process In-Reply-To: References: <542C1F4D.9040004@arin.net> <542D76BD.2010309@quark.net> <67D386E3-F391-4058-9D55-78F57EC213C5@delong.com> Message-ID: On Oct 2, 2014, at 7:42 PM, Hannigan, Martin wrote: > This is a trade association that ARIN claims represents its members. To be clear, ARIN serves to improve the business conditions of Internet industry as a whole via the administration of number resources in the region and related activities. Governance of the organization is set by the membership, but the mission is of greater scope than just the common business interests of those who have ARIN membership. This does not mean that the appropriate mailing list is a public one or a member-only one, but simply a clarification regarding ARIN's scope of mission and why many aspects of ARIN activities are open to public rather than just member-only participation. > I do believe -discuss is appropriate since the general public has plenty of outlets to participate in on their own. They can be easily pointed towards one. There are a number of mailing lists for this purpose (such as those hosted by ISOC, IETF, and ICANN.) It is less clear how input will be received from such forums. > This issue has little to do with ARIN public policy. If we're going to pay for it and allow our names to be aggregated as "the commujity", we ought to have some privilege. Acknowledged - the clear expression of a preference is helpful. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From emile.aben at ripe.net Fri Oct 3 04:32:51 2014 From: emile.aben at ripe.net (Emile Aben) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 10:32:51 +0200 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on New Experimental Allocation In-Reply-To: <542DB6F8.5040506@umn.edu> References: <53DFC055.8080003@arin.net> <53E492C1.20600@ripe.net> <398B250423578A4E97AFE1B8B67C686C2CE1E5A2@PDDCWMBXEX503.ctl.intranet> <542D183D.70809@ripe.net> <542DB6F8.5040506@umn.edu> Message-ID: <542E5F33.7040206@ripe.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 02/10/14 22:35, David Farmer wrote: > I can ping both 23.128.24.1 and 23.128.124.1. > > I have routes for 23.128.24.0/24, 23.128.124.0/24 and > 23.128.25.0/25. > > For some reason I can't ping 23.128.25.1, even though I seem to > have a route for it. Traceroute seems to die in Amsterdam, so > could the problem be on the RIPE Labs end? Checking the return-path from the RIS RRC we can trace back to you with the 23.128.24.1 address, but not with 23.128.25.1. If this peer for the return-traffic didn't install the /25 and does uRPF or otherwise filters, that'd explain it. Useful data point I think. cheers, Emile >> farmer$ traceroute 23.128.25.1 traceroute to 23.128.25.1 >> (23.128.25.1), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets 1 >> infotech-cn-01-v301-3.ggnet.umn.edu (128.101.235.254) 20.161 ms >> 19.534 ms 7.619 ms 2 telecomb-bn-01-v3780.ggnet.umn.edu >> (128.101.58.1) 2.835 ms 2.144 ms 2.178 ms 3 >> telecomb-br-01-v3789.ggnet.umn.edu (128.101.58.2) 2.088 ms >> 2.345 ms 2.147 ms 4 >> telecomb-gr-01-te-2-3.northernlights.gigapop.net (146.57.252.178) >> 2.533 ms 2.215 ms 2.467 ms 5 >> statecob-gr-01-te-2-1.northernlights.gigapop.net (146.57.252.146) >> 3.091 ms 2.654 ms 2.538 ms 6 >> internet2-cic-nlg.northernlights.gigapop.net (146.57.253.54) >> 15.752 ms 15.093 ms 15.464 ms 7 >> et-9-0-0.115.rtr.wash.net.internet2.edu (198.71.45.57) 32.882 ms >> 33.382 ms 32.515 ms 8 abilene-wash.mx1.fra.de.geant.net >> (62.40.125.17) 124.990 ms 155.735 ms 130.369 ms 9 >> ae1.mx1.ams.nl.geant.net (62.40.98.129) 133.210 ms 149.910 ms >> 146.859 ms 10 surfnet-gw.mx1.ams.nl.geant.net (62.40.124.158) >> 144.485 ms 158.031 ms 131.739 ms 11 * * * 12 * * * > >> farmer$ traceroute 23.128.24.1 traceroute to 23.128.24.1 >> (23.128.24.1), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets 1 >> infotech-cn-01-v301-3.ggnet.umn.edu (128.101.235.254) 2.441 ms >> 3.270 ms 2.716 ms 2 telecomb-bn-01-v3780.ggnet.umn.edu >> (128.101.58.1) 8.074 ms 2.019 ms 7.549 ms 3 >> telecomb-br-01-v3789.ggnet.umn.edu (128.101.58.2) 5.027 ms >> 2.474 ms 5.717 ms 4 >> telecomb-gr-01-te-2-3.northernlights.gigapop.net (146.57.252.178) >> 5.878 ms 26.039 ms 2.865 ms 5 >> statecob-gr-01-te-2-1.northernlights.gigapop.net (146.57.252.146) >> 3.105 ms 4.816 ms 3.656 ms 6 >> internet2-cic-nlg.northernlights.gigapop.net (146.57.253.54) >> 15.579 ms 15.296 ms 15.060 ms 7 >> et-9-0-0.115.rtr.wash.net.internet2.edu (198.71.45.57) 38.309 ms >> 44.413 ms 65.712 ms 8 abilene-wash.mx1.fra.de.geant.net >> (62.40.125.17) 125.097 ms 149.973 ms 156.160 ms 9 >> ae1.mx1.ams.nl.geant.net (62.40.98.129) 134.344 ms 148.846 ms >> 132.421 ms 10 surfnet-gw.mx1.ams.nl.geant.net (62.40.124.158) >> 140.542 ms 134.549 ms 147.195 ms 11 23.128.24.1 (23.128.24.1) >> 135.016 ms 142.176 ms 132.000 ms > > Hope that helps. > > On 10/2/14, 04:17 , Emile Aben wrote: >> On 08/08/14 19:45, Delacruz, Anthony B wrote: >>> I support as well. When it kicks off can we let the community >>> know. I'd like to check to see what we actually see. >> >> We plan to start announcing a couple of prefixes from AS12654 >> within the next hour for the purpose of reachability checking of >> prefixes longer than /24 out of ARINs 23.128.0.0/10 block: >> >> With route object: prefix pingable IP 23.128.24.0/24 >> 23.128.24.1 23.128.25.0/25 23.128.25.1 23.128.25.240/28 >> 23.128.25.241 >> >> Without route object: prefix pingable IP >> 23.128.124.0/24 23.128.124.1 23.128.125.0/25 23.128.125.1 >> 23.128.125.240/28 23.128.125.241 >> >> best regards, Emile Aben RIPE NCC > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJULl8zAAoJEKxthF6wloMO23cQAJ4XkyGAYL+MJ48S3ljF4fvY m7CGORLS8Li33pd2799dvI86kxUU51dmqgznVhv5fXgk7ZZTp67v/g7C736Jf873 ESpTT+S07FRTvXUQTFNt3gDM/QAyEDS9Dzvy0mIyURshaKKOZMeyLwYllLPXGoyB EwRjoUADJCp5YxIuNNj6pXWe0VGIlnTyVa5WXvgyf6+i9AGuaRu99IAQ1/VE9RkX XhXV4dqO9bKpdtGB45e1RMqz8ecFTgeIMS2rhb1AXNMWztOioHGHaLQgA2GIhMWM 05Zwzk7juRD8ticMs8iU+sOiIYGgUwD2jht5r9w6HCqJ8fzBe717AZbEVwq0e8Qp JeNnzYJqRuo2nsEhHmJGixrqFKXhtMGfyUqCbGlkO71iol52DUaUrUMkOJakURnh 5OmEJs+LbTQYX24k/u21bqE8tg8+y7bC92cuNySAzEl/MYPue+DzFsDb9y7fKBcK R5Z2nZUUhook9AxsThNIejQJ7WVM+hrUNMYs7ClOBxXX+gf5PXYiqBs5BFCvhj76 TabH/lOs5V4d+BnAIbVRSbEH2fXN7VOYFOsUhjq30F4hhNu8nHs9aKWsg+lYbHkf gszhv9hHLrWwlJcI2/hTVR7DLlVFMNjc9GM7InY8simW74IJto1oH7AB0RSaI98S Q7URxT5/44d/DGyh0Ezd =Hrrc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From no-reply at dropboxmail.com Sun Oct 5 22:28:07 2014 From: no-reply at dropboxmail.com (Dropbox) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 02:28:07 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] =?utf-8?q?francisco_alejandro_viana_canizalez_invi?= =?utf-8?q?ted_you_to_check_out_Dropbox?= Message-ID: <20141006022807.7476.4715@snt-ra6-10d.sjc.dropbox.com> Hi there, francisco alejandro viana canizalez wants you to try Dropbox! Dropbox lets you bring all your photos, docs, and videos with you anywhere and share them easily. Get started here. https://www.dropbox.com/l/S0X7HGExOMJe7zL67N1C4k?text=1 Thanks! - The Dropbox Team ____________________________________________________ To stop receiving invites from Dropbox, please go to https://www.dropbox.com/l/MAVDOHcbUUF0N2Rsn04GRr?text=1 Dropbox, Inc., PO Box 77767, San Francisco, CA 94107 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emile.aben at ripe.net Mon Oct 6 10:20:20 2014 From: emile.aben at ripe.net (Emile Aben) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 16:20:20 +0200 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on New Experimental Allocation In-Reply-To: <542D6CC4.9010106@ripe.net> References: <53DFC055.8080003@arin.net> <53E492C1.20600@ripe.net> <398B250423578A4E97AFE1B8B67C686C2CE1E5A2@PDDCWMBXEX503.ctl.intranet> <542D183D.70809@ripe.net> <8F2D4B57-665C-4B28-8971-9E9A5030BEC6@umn.edu> <542D6CC4.9010106@ripe.net> Message-ID: <5432A524.6080803@ripe.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 02/10/14 17:18, Emile Aben wrote: > The description is here now: > https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/propagation-of-longer-than-24-ipv4-prefixes We've updated that RIPE Labs article to include initial analysis results: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/propagation-of-longer-than-24-ipv4-prefixes Spoiler: the longer-than-/24 prefixes are not very visible/reachable. cheers, Emile Aben RIPE NCC -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUMqUkAAoJEKxthF6wloMOITMP/2cZeHN5eWdetMrFFiUjv4L6 rNLbc2ceHnTVmx5EqJRAz03OXO8kJanyMo2wNqGvu0esPsnaLO+L8Xj4c/7jFmgH RISFArg0c+klxb4iFegzlWslY6y1Jfv3W8HHmkzqVyvvuCnQ7hLJ+KpShVSZSVhe 89K6jwAIQz0L8Y3CkTbBmOcX0jf9oRho6RP9Y1SpNeLViMDgHgW0kkWIV8oyPj0h yX1d3pNVtyX4jkZ35rPGHNXfHstGFXfE9tlpBl3Hup0cF+J7mvw1RgCLJ+6k8dmE k4mxUZuiX4Ixtwjy1wJWxY8AW9J/tTMwWjkDrlD9rSkzpLCmnXiXhTigMjCopRqj rryrVHCVU3RH991zVBX7P8BJFoUWZ/2LrcGJEzlBIpCY4rwTiHWamUde681Rsuko EEBUIdoOatjERip9ljLSVpb83u5o9FLBNsutWPvdmE3HoWrxNypjnbWvUW3X350y 6zFN2OpwKPuPr08hORhaGqhBOG0uhtpx9nhFKgSgh0NsAj8bxeO/dYhzWCtJn3Tw sEwqMrTptruYPZGehXvl/YpvLGGTrtKreOGgQlDcZPoTryVKj3GTHBKN/5dLtw3K VqYsyOC7Bcdj1z3NwGikNsT3+fubsrDsPYgzfM+hzGzCVVfw9Vxt6/QpLzlSbM2U Q9ci9CExZcsS/rViCMhZ =Qdua -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From info at arin.net Fri Oct 10 12:24:08 2014 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 12:24:08 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule Message-ID: <54380828.3020602@arin.net> Following the adoption of the current ARIN Fee Schedule on 1 July 2013, the ARIN Board of Trustees convened a "Fee Structure Review Panel". The panel recently released the "ARIN Fee Structure Review Report" which provides alternative long-term directions for the ARIN fee schedule, outlining the potential merits of each. The full report is available at: https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/community_consult/fee-structure-review.pdf Following a discussion of the report at ARIN 34, we are seeking additional community feedback on evolution of ARIN's Fee Schedule. This consultation will remain open for sixty (60) days, after which a summary will be provided to the Board Finance Committee for their consideration. Please provide comments to arin-consult at arin.net. Discussion on arin-consult at arin.net will close on 9 December 2014. If you have any questions, please contact us at info at arin.net. Regards, John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From jdaniels at forked.net Fri Oct 10 20:29:27 2014 From: jdaniels at forked.net (Jon Daniels) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 17:29:27 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: <54380828.3020602@arin.net> References: <54380828.3020602@arin.net> Message-ID: Members, If you provide a scarce resource at no cost - it will be abused. This happened with IPv4, in part, due to the fee schedule. ARIN is providing scarce number resources at no cost to large organizations. Therefore the incentive to conserve or allocate those resources is absent. This isn't fair and equitable, nor sustainable. It's not too late to create incentives for members to make more efficient use of IPv4 allocations. Small and medium organizations should not pay an extraordinary portion of the fees while large ones receive enormous additional allocations at no cost. A switch to either; Algorithmic, Linear, or an Extended Fee Schedule will increase Fairness and Conservation. ARIN's mission is to be a steward of these principles. That should our mission too. Let's see it happen! If you have yet to read the report John mentioned... It's eye opening. Cheers, Jon Daniels ARIN Member On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:24 AM, ARIN wrote: > Following the adoption of the current ARIN Fee Schedule on 1 July 2013, > the ARIN Board of Trustees convened a "Fee Structure Review Panel". The > panel recently released the "ARIN Fee Structure Review Report" which > provides alternative long-term directions for the ARIN fee schedule, > outlining the potential merits of each. > > The full report is available at: > https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/community_ > consult/fee-structure-review.pdf > > Following a discussion of the report at ARIN 34, we are seeking > additional community feedback on evolution of ARIN's Fee Schedule. > > This consultation will remain open for sixty (60) days, after which a > summary will be provided to the Board Finance Committee for their > consideration. > > Please provide comments to arin-consult at arin.net. > > Discussion on arin-consult at arin.net will close on 9 December 2014. > > If you have any questions, please contact us at info at arin.net. > > Regards, > > John Curran > President and CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the > ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bill at herrin.us Sat Oct 11 00:00:48 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 00:00:48 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: <54380828.3020602@arin.net> References: <54380828.3020602@arin.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:24 PM, ARIN wrote: > Following the adoption of the current ARIN Fee Schedule on 1 July 2013, > the ARIN Board of Trustees convened a "Fee Structure Review Panel". The > panel recently released the "ARIN Fee Structure Review Report" which > provides alternative long-term directions for the ARIN fee schedule, > outlining the potential merits of each. > > The full report is available at: > https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/community_consult/fee-structure-review.pdf Hello, I was very disappointed to see my 2012 campaign platform of no fees for IPv6 in the short term completely ignored by the review panel. Were you asleep? Seriously, I got half the votes I'd have needed to be elected to the board on that platform. Is even that not enough for you to evaluate the notion, even if only to state the reasons you think it's a bad idea? I'd like to see the cost of IPv6 reduced to $10/year or less for the first assignment or allocation to an organization regardless of size *until* IPv6 replaces IPv4 as the dominant protocol on the Internet. Charging for IPv6 address now, as most organizations continue to realize little or no revenue from it, slows adoption to no good purpose. Once IPv6 is the dominant driver on the Internet, its registry cost will have to change. Even today's IPv6 fees are not enough to sustain the organization once revenue from IPv4 fees begins its plunge. But let's deal with that when the time is ripe for it. Charging more than pocket change today just gets in the way of an already sluggish uptake. In IPv4 I'd like to see a cost schedule tied to the number of IP addresses allocated. Perhaps not linearly, but it should diverge by no more than a single order of magnitude across the range of allocations. So, if a /24 costs $100 per year (39 cents per address) then a /8 should cost *at least* $655,000 per year (3.9 cents per address). Or turn it around: if a /8 costs $32,000 per year (0.2 cents per address) then a /24 should cost no more than $5.12 (2 cents per address). When the cost per address diverges by not one or two, but three full orders of magnitude (1000 times) between the largest address hoarders, excuse me, address holders and the smallest, the system has a pretty severe fairness problem. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: May I solve your unusual networking challenges? From amcmillen at sliqua.com Sat Oct 11 00:33:15 2014 From: amcmillen at sliqua.com (Alexander McMillen) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 00:33:15 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: References: <54380828.3020602@arin.net> Message-ID: Absolutely agree with you on this. Some further two cents: As a provider that simply has a /21 of v4 and /32 of v6, we're currently considering shorting our v6 allocation to save $1000 a year as we simply don't have the v6 space utilized to justify the allocation.... As for whatever reason, ARIN felt the need to offer a /32 of v6 by default (with no option for a smaller allocation at the time of issuance) and now we're being penalized for their mistake now that smaller allocations are available. Meanwhile the larger providers get away with paying pennies on the dollar for their v4 space, and the v6 space is an after thought. Alexander McMillen AS32740 Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 11, 2014, at 12:00 AM, William Herrin wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:24 PM, ARIN wrote: >> Following the adoption of the current ARIN Fee Schedule on 1 July 2013, >> the ARIN Board of Trustees convened a "Fee Structure Review Panel". The >> panel recently released the "ARIN Fee Structure Review Report" which >> provides alternative long-term directions for the ARIN fee schedule, >> outlining the potential merits of each. >> >> The full report is available at: >> https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/community_consult/fee-structure-review.pdf > > Hello, > > I was very disappointed to see my 2012 campaign platform of no fees > for IPv6 in the short term completely ignored by the review panel. > Were you asleep? Seriously, I got half the votes I'd have needed to be > elected to the board on that platform. Is even that not enough for you > to evaluate the notion, even if only to state the reasons you think > it's a bad idea? > > I'd like to see the cost of IPv6 reduced to $10/year or less for the > first assignment or allocation to an organization regardless of size > *until* IPv6 replaces IPv4 as the dominant protocol on the Internet. > Charging for IPv6 address now, as most organizations continue to > realize little or no revenue from it, slows adoption to no good > purpose. > > Once IPv6 is the dominant driver on the Internet, its registry cost > will have to change. Even today's IPv6 fees are not enough to sustain > the organization once revenue from IPv4 fees begins its plunge. But > let's deal with that when the time is ripe for it. Charging more than > pocket change today just gets in the way of an already sluggish > uptake. > > > In IPv4 I'd like to see a cost schedule tied to the number of IP > addresses allocated. Perhaps not linearly, but it should diverge by no > more than a single order of magnitude across the range of allocations. > So, if a /24 costs $100 per year (39 cents per address) then a /8 > should cost *at least* $655,000 per year (3.9 cents per address). Or > turn it around: if a /8 costs $32,000 per year (0.2 cents per address) > then a /24 should cost no more than $5.12 (2 cents per address). > > When the cost per address diverges by not one or two, but three full > orders of magnitude (1000 times) between the largest address hoarders, > excuse me, address holders and the smallest, the system has a pretty > severe fairness problem. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > -- > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: > May I solve your unusual networking challenges? > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jcurran at arin.net Sat Oct 11 09:13:59 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 13:13:59 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: References: <54380828.3020602@arin.net> Message-ID: On Oct 11, 2014, at 12:00 AM, William Herrin wrote: > I was very disappointed to see my 2012 campaign platform of no fees > for IPv6 in the short term completely ignored by the review panel. > Were you asleep? Seriously, I got half the votes I'd have needed to be > elected to the board on that platform. Is even that not enough for you > to evaluate the notion, even if only to state the reasons you think > it's a bad idea? Bill - The panel had no obligation to respond to each idea that was suggested for evolution of fees; they chose to work on set of proposals which they felt were of interest to the community and would aid discussion. You are also encouraged to bring forth any proposal you feel would be appropriate to the discussion. > I'd like to see the cost of IPv6 reduced to $10/year or less for the > first assignment or allocation to an organization regardless of size > *until* IPv6 replaces IPv4 as the dominant protocol on the Internet. For clarity, presently ISP's pay an annual fee based on the category which accomodates their IPv4 and IPv6 address holdings. This is written in Appendix A1 in the document (as well as ARIN's web site) Are you proposing that IPv6 holdings not be considered for purpose of this calculation, or some other approach to determination of fees? I would be happy to model your proposal if I can gain a clear understanding of its characteristics. > ... > In IPv4 I'd like to see a cost schedule tied to the number of IP > addresses allocated. Perhaps not linearly, but it should diverge by no > more than a single order of magnitude across the range of allocations. > So, if a /24 costs $100 per year (39 cents per address) then a /8 > should cost *at least* $655,000 per year (3.9 cents per address). Or > turn it around: if a /8 costs $32,000 per year (0.2 cents per address) > then a /24 should cost no more than $5.12 (2 cents per address). There are several proposals in the review document with similar properties, including linear and algorithmic. Have you reviewed these? Also, are you proposing that such fees should apply to end-user IPv4 address holders as well? > When the cost per address diverges by not one or two, but three full > orders of magnitude (1000 times) between the largest address hoarders, > excuse me, address holders and the smallest, the system has a pretty > severe fairness problem. To be clear, the fees we are referring to are not "for an allocation", they are simply a share of ARIN's total costs recognizing the benefit to the community in having a registry for the region. For example, a large ISP which transfers a /8 (in accordance with policy) from another resource holder may indeed in doing so incur costs of millions of dollars, but that is completely orthogonal to imputed costs to ARIN's maintaining the corresponding registry entries. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From bill at herrin.us Sat Oct 11 14:05:16 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 14:05:16 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: References: <54380828.3020602@arin.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 9:13 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 11, 2014, at 12:00 AM, William Herrin wrote: >> I was very disappointed to see my 2012 campaign platform of no fees >> for IPv6 in the short term completely ignored by the review panel. >> Were you asleep? Seriously, I got half the votes I'd have needed to be >> elected to the board on that platform. Is even that not enough for you >> to evaluate the notion, even if only to state the reasons you think >> it's a bad idea? > > The panel had no obligation to respond to each idea that was > suggested for evolution of fees; they chose to work on set of > proposals which they felt were of interest to the community > and would aid discussion. Hi John, Apparently one that collected actual votes was of less interest to them than their own pet theories. This disappoints me. What other ideas were arbitrarily disregarded? Or do I have the pleasure of being singly snubbed? >> I'd like to see the cost of IPv6 reduced to $10/year or less for the >> first assignment or allocation to an organization regardless of size >> *until* IPv6 replaces IPv4 as the dominant protocol on the Internet. > > For clarity, presently ISP's pay an annual fee based on the category > which accomodates their IPv4 and IPv6 address holdings. This is > written in Appendix A1 in the document (as well as ARIN's web site) > Are you proposing that IPv6 holdings not be considered for purpose > of this calculation, or some other approach to determination of fees? > I would be happy to model your proposal if I can gain a clear > understanding of its characteristics. I propose that the first or single IPv6 allocation/assignment requested and held by an organization not be considered during the fee calculation, period. At all. In any way, shape or form. If you need a nominal fee to maintain the business relationship collect $10, but leave IPv6 out of the fee calculation. For now. Make it clear that when IPv6 overtakes IPv4, the fees will change. If you're comfortable predicting it, state what those fees are likely to become. But until IPv6 supercedes IPv4, support ARIN with IPv4 fees where registrants' revenues and needs easily justify the cost. Free IPv6. As in no money. Free. Like IPv4 was 20 years ago during its ramp-up to wide commercial deployment in North America. >> In IPv4 I'd like to see a cost schedule tied to the number of IP >> addresses allocated. Perhaps not linearly, but it should diverge by no >> more than a single order of magnitude across the range of allocations. >> So, if a /24 costs $100 per year (39 cents per address) then a /8 >> should cost *at least* $655,000 per year (3.9 cents per address). Or >> turn it around: if a /8 costs $32,000 per year (0.2 cents per address) >> then a /24 should cost no more than $5.12 (2 cents per address). > > There are several proposals in the review document with similar > properties, including linear and algorithmic. I saw. I honestly don't care about the exact formula. Pick one that's convenient. I care that the per-address cost spread between registrants be somewhat reasonable. The current three orders of magnitude is not reasonable. > Also, are you proposing that such fees should apply to > end-user IPv4 address holders as well? Certainly. It has always bothered me that ISPs and End Users enjoy a different set of requirements and privileges. The only group I'd exclude is the legacy registrations, whether by ISPs or end users. ARIN came to exist on the promise to leave those registrations in peace. I wouldn't be comfortable leaving the legacy registrations under ARIN's stewardship if it did not continue to honor that promise. >> When the cost per address diverges by not one or two, but three full >> orders of magnitude (1000 times) between the largest address hoarders, >> excuse me, address holders and the smallest, the system has a pretty >> severe fairness problem. > > To be clear, the fees we are referring to are not "for an allocation", > they are simply a share of ARIN's total costs recognizing the benefit > to the community in having a registry for the region. The free pool is empty for some uses and will soon be empty for most. Right now, today, stewarding IPv4 on behalf of the public is by far the most important thing ARIN does. Everything else ARIN does today finds priority at a distant, distant second. If you accept that statement, how could it be -fair- to spread ARIN's cost based on some other factor than the consumption of that scarce and valuable resource? When the IPv4 free pool was still large, this was not the case. Hopefully it won't be the case for IPv6 within my lifetime -- I don't want to see the end of the IPv6 free pool. Nevertheless, while IPv4 remains the driver and its free pool remains gone, I can imagine no fairer way to spread ARIN's cost than by registrants' consumption of IPv4. I understand that ARIN's cost to steward an IPv4 address does not reflect that address' market value. Nevertheless, the relative consumption of those addresses is the proper way to spread ARIN's cost at this particular point in time. Hopefully this provides clarity about the kind of fee structure I'd like to see. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: May I solve your unusual networking challenges? From jcurran at arin.net Sat Oct 11 15:59:29 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 19:59:29 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: References: <54380828.3020602@arin.net> Message-ID: On Oct 11, 2014, at 2:05 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 9:13 AM, John Curran wrote: >> On Oct 11, 2014, at 12:00 AM, William Herrin wrote: >> The panel had no obligation to respond to each idea that was >> suggested for evolution of fees; they chose to work on set of >> proposals which they felt were of interest to the community >> and would aid discussion. > > Hi John, > > Apparently one that collected actual votes was of less interest to > them than their own pet theories. This disappoints me. What other > ideas were arbitrarily disregarded? Or do I have the pleasure of being > singly snubbed? Bill - I was probably unclear in my earlier reply - the panel's objective was to provide a starting set of proposals to aid the discussion; i.e. we are at the beginning of a discussion, and additional proposals are certainly welcome. > I propose that the first or single IPv6 allocation/assignment > requested and held by an organization not be considered during the fee > calculation, period. At all. In any way, shape or form. We do not readily have access to the assignment date for blocks in the billing information presently used, but such could be added if that is necessary. I was able to readily model if _all_ IPv6 holdings were not considered for purposes of billing, ARIN's revenues would be reduced by approximately $997,000 annually ($13.476M today vs $12.475M revised w/o IPv6 holdings) I have attached this model of ISP billing categorization when set only by IPv4 holdings (using the same format as proposals contained in the report) > ... > For now. Make it clear that when IPv6 overtakes IPv4, the fees will > change. If you're comfortable predicting it, state what those fees are > likely to become. But until IPv6 supercedes IPv4, support ARIN with > IPv4 fees where registrants' revenues and needs easily justify the > cost. Until such time as IPv4 address blocks are being actively returned by organizations (seeking to lower their fees), there is no impact to ARIN's receipts. After that point, ARIN's annual ISP billings drop from approx $12.5 million to zero as increasing number of IPv4 resources are returned. While costs are expected to be lower at that time, some billing adjustment would certainly be necessary. >> To be clear, the fees we are referring to are not "for an allocation", >> they are simply a share of ARIN's total costs recognizing the benefit >> to the community in having a registry for the region. > > The free pool is empty for some uses and will soon be empty for most. > Right now, today, stewarding IPv4 on behalf of the public is by far > the most important thing ARIN does. Everything else ARIN does today > finds priority at a distant, distant second. If you accept that > statement, how could it be -fair- to spread ARIN's cost based on some > other factor than the consumption of that scarce and valuable > resource? > > When the IPv4 free pool was still large, this was not the case. > Hopefully it won't be the case for IPv6 within my lifetime -- I don't > want to see the end of the IPv6 free pool. Nevertheless, while IPv4 > remains the driver and its free pool remains gone, I can imagine no > fairer way to spread ARIN's cost than by registrants' consumption of > IPv4. The entire Internet community in the region benefits from having registry services and there are likely a very large number of fair and equitable approaches to distribution of costs. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN === ARIN-anon-orgs-FeeModels-ARIN2013-1-noIPv6.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ARIN-anon-orgs-FeeModels-ARIN2013-1-noIPv6.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 87801 bytes Desc: ARIN-anon-orgs-FeeModels-ARIN2013-1-noIPv6.pdf URL: From jcurran at arin.net Sat Oct 11 16:05:27 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 20:05:27 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: References: <54380828.3020602@arin.net> Message-ID: On Oct 11, 2014, at 12:33 AM, Alexander McMillen wrote: > As a provider that simply has a /21 of v4 and /32 of v6, we're currently considering shorting our v6 allocation to save $1000 a year as we simply don't have the v6 space utilized to justify the allocation.... Alexander - Have you looked at the proposal in the report to "realign IPv6 fee categories"? It specifically aims to address the concern that you raised regarding a financial disincentive for those who obtain an /32 IPv6 allocation. Does meet your requirements, or is some other proposal preferred? Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From amcmillen at sliqua.com Sun Oct 12 09:40:00 2014 From: amcmillen at sliqua.com (Alexander McMillen) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 09:40:00 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: References: <54380828.3020602@arin.net> Message-ID: Hi John, Yes, proposal #3 addresses my requirements with regards to re-aligning the v6 fee for early adopters. In reviewing all of the proposals, I'm a fan of proposal #4 as it solves the issue of disproportionate costs between small and large providers, and actually would increase revenue for ARIN vs the result of proposal #2. I feel that having additional size categories will incentivize those with excessive v4 allocations (in particular resources that aren't in use) to return resources to the pool if there's significant cost associated to holding onto them. Thanks, Alexander McMillen AS32740 Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 11, 2014, at 4:05 PM, John Curran wrote: > >> On Oct 11, 2014, at 12:33 AM, Alexander McMillen wrote: >> >> As a provider that simply has a /21 of v4 and /32 of v6, we're currently considering shorting our v6 allocation to save $1000 a year as we simply don't have the v6 space utilized to justify the allocation.... > > Alexander - > > Have you looked at the proposal in the report to "realign IPv6 fee > categories"? It specifically aims to address the concern that you > raised regarding a financial disincentive for those who obtain an > /32 IPv6 allocation. Does meet your requirements, or is some other > proposal preferred? > > Thanks! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > From jcurran at arin.net Sun Oct 12 10:09:38 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 14:09:38 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] IANA Transition survey questions (was: ARIN Community Consultation on the ICG RFP Response Process) In-Reply-To: <542C1F4D.9040004@arin.net> References: <542C1F4D.9040004@arin.net> Message-ID: <1B868616-6621-48E7-8D57-979D0EEC2D62@corp.arin.net> On Oct 1, 2014, at 11:35 AM, ARIN wrote: > In this community consultation, ARIN seeks your input on the following > questions: > > 1. Is the process outlined above for response development in the ARIN > region sufficient or are any changes needed? As a result of the discussion on this list and during the ARIN 34 meeting, we will proceed with the ARIN regional process as outlined. Noting the significant concern expressed during the meeting regarding lack of information about the process for developing an overall RIR community proposal for IANA stewardship transition, we will redouble efforts to come to agreement with the other RIR's on the overall process, and once done will get the details published to the community expeditiously. > 2. Do we need a dedicated mailing list in the ARIN region for conducting > the community discussion on this topic, or does an existing ARIN list > such as arin-consult, arin-discuss, or PPML suffice? If a new list is > created for this purpose, should it be prepopulated with subscribers > from another list? There was significant support for a new mailing list for the ARIN regional consultation, and so we will create an "iana-transition at arin.net" mailing list for the purpose of developing an ARIN community proposal for IANA stewardship transition. Once this list is available, we will send information out on how to subscribe. > 3. ARIN intends to conduct a community survey from October 13 to October > 20th to aid in development of a response - please review the three draft > survey questions (attached) and provide any suggestions or comments for > improvement. > > Please provide comments on the above points to arin-consult at arin.net. > > Discussion of the process and these points will occur on > arin-consult at arin.net mailing list through 10 October 2014. We intend to issue the community survey tomorrow, and have revised the survey questions the IANA Stewardship Transition discussion that took place during ARIN 34. My thanks to those in the community who raised concerns, and to the ARIN Advisory Council members who aided in revising the questions (which are attached for reference.) Please take a moment to complete the survey (once announced tomorrow) and encourage others in the region who have an interest in this topic to also complete it. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN === Final Survey Questions For each of the following questions, please indicate your level of agreement on a scale of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Skip any question for which you have no opinion - you may also provide a free-form input in response to any question. 1) ICANN has historically managed the operation of Internet number resource-related IANA functions well. 2) ICANN should to continue to manage operation of the Internet number resource-related IANA functions. 3) There is a need for an external IANA oversight mechanism to replace the oversight provided y NTIA's present contracting role. 4) Any new IANA oversight mechanism should make the RIRs accountable for the management of the IANA functions related to the Internet number resources. 5) The RIR communities should be able to terminate the contract to perform the numbering-related IANA functions if the IANA operator does not perform well or abuses its position. 6) The number resource community is represented in any accountability processes by the membership-based Regional Internet Registry organizations. 7) The IANA transition should go forward regardless of the outcome of the ICANN enhanced accountability process. 8) The DNS community must be satisfied with the status of the ICANN enhanced accountability process before the IANA transition takes place. 9) It is important to keep policy making functions separate from IANA functions. 10) Funding arrangements to cover the staff, equipment and other operational costs associated with operation of the IANA functions should be transparent and stable. === From jcurran at arin.net Sun Oct 12 10:20:37 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 14:20:37 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: References: <54380828.3020602@arin.net> Message-ID: <1CB1E9B2-7993-406E-9D2D-6EF9A010A2D6@arin.net> On Oct 12, 2014, at 9:40 AM, Alexander McMillen wrote: > Hi John, > Yes, proposal #3 addresses my requirements with regards to re-aligning the v6 fee for early adopters. Alexander - That's good to know... we've had several folks echo this concern both on the mailing list and during the recent fee schedule discussion at the ARIN 34 meeting. > In reviewing all of the proposals, I'm a fan of proposal #4 as it solves the issue of disproportionate costs between small and large providers, and actually would increase revenue for ARIN vs the result of proposal #2. It is not at all clear if ARIN needs additional revenue at this time (as we have been steadily adding to reserves for many years) but the point is noted. It's possible that the strongest merit for proposal #4 is the ability to significantly lower the fees for those with smaller address holdings, i.e. $50 to $400 annual for more than half of the ISP community.) > I feel that having additional size categories will incentivize those with excessive v4 allocations (in particular resources that aren't in use) to return resources to the pool if there's significant cost associated to holding onto them. Presently, those with larger address holdings do pay more for their corresponding registration services category, only with a limit to the number of categories. If such a limit were removed, do you feel that those with larger invoices would seek a corresponding larger say in how ARIN is governed? Thanks for your input on this important topic! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From bill at herrin.us Sun Oct 12 13:04:21 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 13:04:21 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: <1CB1E9B2-7993-406E-9D2D-6EF9A010A2D6@arin.net> References: <54380828.3020602@arin.net> <1CB1E9B2-7993-406E-9D2D-6EF9A010A2D6@arin.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 10:20 AM, John Curran wrote: > do you feel > that those with larger invoices would seek a corresponding larger > say in how ARIN is governed? Hi John, That depends. Should ARIN be capable of providing the public oversight function that the USG wants to shed? Vote per share and similar sliding-scale representation schemes are incompatible with providing *public* oversight. Were ARIN to align itself with representing the *members*, some independent oversight agency would be needed. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: May I solve your unusual networking challenges? From bill at herrin.us Sun Oct 12 13:41:40 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 13:41:40 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: References: <54380828.3020602@arin.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 3:59 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 11, 2014, at 2:05 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> When the IPv4 free pool was still large, this was not the case. >> Hopefully it won't be the case for IPv6 within my lifetime -- I don't >> want to see the end of the IPv6 free pool. Nevertheless, while IPv4 >> remains the driver and its free pool remains gone, I can imagine no >> fairer way to spread ARIN's cost than by registrants' consumption of >> IPv4. > > The entire Internet community in the region benefits from having > registry services and there are likely a very large number of > fair and equitable approaches to distribution of costs. Yeah? How much money is the FBI or DEA chipping in for their consumption of registry services? What about the network security vendors running address reputation filters? What portion of ARIN's revenues do they supply? I have to disagree with you John. IPv4 protocol addresses are a linchpin resource for folks using the Internet and they're edging ever closer to unavailable. The notion that the cost of any operation touching on that resource could be fairly structured by some mechanism not closely aligned with consumption of the resource itself is simply unimaginable to me. It ought to be unimaginable to you. You already know this, which is why ARIN fees ARE presently structured based on consumption. But they miss -- there is a three orders of magnitude disparity favoring the folks who have the most addresses locked up. This is not particularly close to fair. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: May I solve your unusual networking challenges? From jcurran at arin.net Sun Oct 12 14:01:37 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 18:01:37 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: References: <54380828.3020602@arin.net> Message-ID: <963F17ED-40D2-4A29-A759-23CCC1DEF164@arin.net> On Oct 12, 2014, at 1:41 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 3:59 PM, John Curran wrote: >> >> >> The entire Internet community in the region benefits from having >> registry services and there are likely a very large number of >> fair and equitable approaches to distribution of costs. > > Yeah? How much money is the FBI or DEA chipping in for their > consumption of registry services? What about the network security > vendors running address reputation filters? What portion of ARIN's > revenues do they supply? Those making use of the registry are generally not paying anything; ARIN's total costs are recovered from those who have number resources in the registry. > I have to disagree with you John. IPv4 protocol addresses are a > linchpin resource for folks using the Internet and they're edging ever > closer to unavailable. The notion that the cost of any operation > touching on that resource could be fairly structured by some mechanism > not closely aligned with consumption of the resource itself is simply > unimaginable to me. It ought to be unimaginable to you. You've made it clear that you believe that cost-recovery based solely on IPv4 address holdings is the only fair structure. The point of a consultation is to get input from the community, so I take no position other than to be open to any proposal that folks wish to make. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Sun Oct 12 14:20:16 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 18:20:16 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: References: <54380828.3020602@arin.net> <1CB1E9B2-7993-406E-9D2D-6EF9A010A2D6@arin.net> Message-ID: <2C8CBAD7-2C8E-4A03-B8FD-AD7A16ABF1BB@arin.net> On Oct 12, 2014, at 1:04 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 10:20 AM, John Curran wrote: >> do you feel >> that those with larger invoices would seek a corresponding larger >> say in how ARIN is governed? > > Hi John, > > That depends. Should ARIN be capable of providing the public oversight > function that the USG wants to shed? Vote per share and similar > sliding-scale representation schemes are incompatible with providing > *public* oversight. Were ARIN to align itself with representing the > *members*, some independent oversight agency would be needed. Bill - As the IANA Stewardship discussion is ongoing, it remains unclear what requirements (if any) that will be ultimately placed on the organizations involved in IANA oversight in any capacity, thus making it rather speculative consideration for purposes of setting the direction for ARIN's fee structure (at least at this time.) Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From bill at herrin.us Sun Oct 12 16:33:03 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 16:33:03 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: <2C8CBAD7-2C8E-4A03-B8FD-AD7A16ABF1BB@arin.net> References: <54380828.3020602@arin.net> <1CB1E9B2-7993-406E-9D2D-6EF9A010A2D6@arin.net> <2C8CBAD7-2C8E-4A03-B8FD-AD7A16ABF1BB@arin.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 2:20 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 12, 2014, at 1:04 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 10:20 AM, John Curran wrote: >>> do you feel >>> that those with larger invoices would seek a corresponding larger >>> say in how ARIN is governed? >> >> That depends. Should ARIN be capable of providing the public oversight >> function that the USG wants to shed? Vote per share and similar >> sliding-scale representation schemes are incompatible with providing >> *public* oversight. > > As the IANA Stewardship discussion is ongoing, it remains unclear > what requirements (if any) that will be ultimately placed on the > organizations involved in IANA oversight in any capacity, thus > making it rather speculative consideration for purposes of setting > the direction for ARIN's fee structure (at least at this time.) Hi John, You asked the question of how ARIN should be governed. If you don't want to speculate on the impacts of that choice then don't ask a question that demands speculation. Discuss changes to fees not governance. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: May I solve your unusual networking challenges? From bill at herrin.us Sun Oct 12 16:53:44 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 16:53:44 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: <963F17ED-40D2-4A29-A759-23CCC1DEF164@arin.net> References: <54380828.3020602@arin.net> <963F17ED-40D2-4A29-A759-23CCC1DEF164@arin.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 2:01 PM, John Curran wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 3:59 PM, John Curran wrote: >>> there are likely a very large number of >>> fair and equitable approaches to distribution of costs. > > The point of a > consultation is to get input from the community, so I take no position > other than to be open to any proposal that folks wish to make. Good. As this discussion wears on, I would ask you to keep this very thing in mind -- that it is not your role here to tell the community what the range of fair payment structures is, or whether that range is larger or smaller than we think. Rather, it is our opportunity to tell you. Right? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: May I solve your unusual networking challenges? From jcurran at arin.net Sun Oct 12 21:50:26 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 01:50:26 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: References: <54380828.3020602@arin.net> <1CB1E9B2-7993-406E-9D2D-6EF9A010A2D6@arin.net> <2C8CBAD7-2C8E-4A03-B8FD-AD7A16ABF1BB@arin.net> Message-ID: <0A930FD3-6CC8-4891-85DA-3583435502C1@arin.net> On Oct 12, 2014, at 1:33 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 2:20 PM, John Curran wrote: >> As the IANA Stewardship discussion is ongoing, it remains unclear >> what requirements (if any) that will be ultimately placed on the >> organizations involved in IANA oversight in any capacity, thus >> making it rather speculative consideration for purposes of setting >> the direction for ARIN's fee structure (at least at this time.) > > Hi John, > > You asked the question of how ARIN should be governed. If you don't > want to speculate on the impacts of that choice then don't ask a > question that demands speculation. Discuss changes to fees not > governance. Bill - The difference between considering ARIN's governance mechanisms versus whatever results from the IANA Stewardship Transition is that one in plainly under the control of the ARIN Board of Trustees (as informed by this community) whereas the other is quite indeterminate at this time and will be shaped by inputs from a wider span of communities who deal with other identifier spaces and wider geography. As such, constraining ARIN's discussion of future fee schedule structures to solely those which meet your views on the future requirements that may (or may not) emerge from the IANA Stewardship Transition process would not appear a productive constraint for this community consultation. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Sun Oct 12 22:03:40 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 02:03:40 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: References: <54380828.3020602@arin.net> <963F17ED-40D2-4A29-A759-23CCC1DEF164@arin.net> Message-ID: <34F8A767-5FDD-4696-899A-7530C7BFC0CB@arin.net> On Oct 12, 2014, at 1:53 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 2:01 PM, John Curran wrote: >> ... >> The point of a >> consultation is to get input from the community, so I take no position >> other than to be open to any proposal that folks wish to make. > > Good. As this discussion wears on, I would ask you to keep this very > thing in mind -- that it is not your role here to tell the community > what the range of fair payment structures is, or whether that range is > larger or smaller than we think. Rather, it is our opportunity to tell > you. > > Right? Incorrect. It is specifically my role to facilitate the discussion of any proposals brought forth; this includes yours, those in the Fee Structure report, and any others that may appear. For example, it would be helpful to get more insight into what exactly you are suggesting, as your statement that > "I honestly don't care about the exact formula. Pick one that's convenient." doesn't really allow the community to understand what you are proposing (i.e. it could be linear or algorithmic/logarithmic, with narrow range or wide...) It is the ARIN community's role to discuss the merits and concerns with each proposal, so that the Finance Committee of the ARIN Board of Trustees can then consider if any change in direction is needed with ample insight into the variety of community views when it comes to ARIN's future free structure. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From David.Huberman at microsoft.com Sun Oct 12 23:45:20 2014 From: David.Huberman at microsoft.com (David Huberman) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 03:45:20 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: <54380828.3020602@arin.net> References: <54380828.3020602@arin.net> Message-ID: <3293794e35264040b8101dd86ebd50c6@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> Hello, I strongly endorse Proposal 4. Before I go into why, I'd like to note that I think that Proposal 6 and especially Proposal 7 would have been great 10 or 20 years ago. They're equitable in many ways and from many perspectives. I think they are untenable in 2014 due to the severe rate increase on the vast majority of ARIN's paying customers. That said, Proposal 4 is very attractive. Why do I think it is attractive? 1) It adds a dose of financial reality to the fee schedule - the more you have, the more you pay. 2) It considers a waiver of some sort for not-for-profits/government/educational, which should have been there all along. Again, financial reality found commonly in the North American economies that ARIN has lacked for 17 years. 3) The 54 biggest consumers of IPv4 addresses over the last 17 years are evenly distributed among the 50k -> 400k fee buckets. At the highest tiers, the 200k and 400k buckets, these companies are already paying tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in the free market for IPv4, so this money isn't significant. Microsoft, Akamai, Google, Amazon, AT&T, Comcast, etc. -- they can absorb this budget line item increase. 4) Most paying members see a decrease in fees. That's excellent. That would be the 4th fee decrease ARIN has given the membership, I think. 5) It removes the IPv6 fee schedule disparity. A /32 costs $400, which is less than what most folks already pay. BIG win. 6) It's budget neutral.[1] $16.5mm in annual fees based on this year's numbers is about where we're at already. The analysis shows $918k more, but ARIN has run a budget deficit the last few years (or the recent years I looked). [1]This "budget neutral" statement is made without knowing the extent of the waivers/fee reductions for not-for-profits, educational institutions, and governments. They could be significant. I support the waiver idea, but the analysis in the Appendix does not seem to consider it in its calculations, which is fine. That's my input. From reading the document, it's clear to me the Board has finally taken to heart the need to remove the IPv6 disincentive that it has ignored for 15 years. That makes me happy. Regards, David David R Huberman Microsoft Corporation Principal, Global IP Addressing From bill at herrin.us Mon Oct 13 00:23:40 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 00:23:40 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: <0A930FD3-6CC8-4891-85DA-3583435502C1@arin.net> References: <54380828.3020602@arin.net> <1CB1E9B2-7993-406E-9D2D-6EF9A010A2D6@arin.net> <2C8CBAD7-2C8E-4A03-B8FD-AD7A16ABF1BB@arin.net> <0A930FD3-6CC8-4891-85DA-3583435502C1@arin.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 9:50 PM, John Curran wrote: > The difference between considering ARIN's governance mechanisms versus > whatever results from the IANA Stewardship Transition is that one in > plainly under the control of the ARIN Board of Trustees (as informed > by this community) whereas the other is quite indeterminate at this > time and will be shaped by inputs from a wider span of communities > who deal with other identifier spaces and wider geography. John, if you'd like to talk about ARIN governance, I'll go there with you. Let's discuss whether it's fair that each ISP has only one vote per registered organization instead of a vote sized based on fees or addresses held. Whether its fair that the consolidated behemoths have multiple registered organizations from which to vote. Let's discuss whether it's fair that end user organizations generally do not have a voting say in the regional monopoly on IP addresses. Let's discuss whether it's fair that service providers vote on behalf of all their customers without any pretense at seeking their consent as they've selected representatives who have historically barred most of those same customers from holding addresses directly from ARIN at any price. But before we dive down that rabbit hole, let me respectfully suggest that the discussion of fees under the *current* governance structure might get lost in the shuffle. I'd hate to see that happen because I came here to talk about fees not governance. Still, if you insist on leading us into a discussion about ARIN governance, then that is what we will discuss. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: May I solve your unusual networking challenges? From jcurran at arin.net Mon Oct 13 00:44:29 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 04:44:29 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: <3293794e35264040b8101dd86ebd50c6@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> References: <54380828.3020602@arin.net> <3293794e35264040b8101dd86ebd50c6@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <822BD18F-0396-4CBC-8846-7E521EDA4C62@corp.arin.net> On Oct 12, 2014, at 8:45 PM, David Huberman wrote: > > 6) It's budget neutral.[1] $16.5mm in annual fees based on this year's numbers is about where we're at already. The analysis shows $918k more, but ARIN has run a budget deficit the last few years (or the recent years I looked). A minor point for clarity - I'm not certain what you mean by "budget deficit", but will note that ARIN's operating results are in the annual and auditors reports online - https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/annual_rprt.html) ARIN has had operating expenses less than revenues consistently in recent years; per the above documents, ARIN expenses in 2013 were $453K less than revenues. This year's budget plan has ARIN with $16.96 M in expenses and $17.07 M in expected revenues. > ... > That's my input. From reading the document, it's clear to me the Board has finally taken to heart the need to remove the IPv6 disincentive that it has ignored for 15 years. That makes me happy. To my knowledge, the ARIN Board hasn't expressed any view on future fee schedule direction, although they did charter the Fee Structure Review panel to consider and document a range of options to aid in discussion of future direction by the community. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From bill at herrin.us Mon Oct 13 00:47:40 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 00:47:40 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: <34F8A767-5FDD-4696-899A-7530C7BFC0CB@arin.net> References: <54380828.3020602@arin.net> <963F17ED-40D2-4A29-A759-23CCC1DEF164@arin.net> <34F8A767-5FDD-4696-899A-7530C7BFC0CB@arin.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 10:03 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 12, 2014, at 1:53 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > It is specifically my role to facilitate the discussion of any > proposals brought forth; this includes yours, those in the Fee Structure > report, and any others that may appear. For example, it would be helpful to > get more insight into what exactly you are suggesting, as your statement that > >> "I honestly don't care about the exact formula. Pick one that's convenient." > > doesn't really allow the community to understand what you are proposing (i.e. > it could be linear or algorithmic/logarithmic, with narrow range or wide...) John, I did not make an specific proposal. I expressed three constraints that I believe any specific proposal must meet in order to be reasonable both now and in the near future: Constraint #1: That the fees be strongly tied to the registrant's consumption of IPv4 addresses Constraint #2: That the annual fee divided by held IPv4 addresses for each registrant vary by no more than one order of magnitude (10x) compared to any other registrant. Constraint #3: That no fee be based on the assignment of IPv6 addresses until such a time as IPv6 becomes the dominant protocol on the Internet. I won't be making a specific proposal or suggesting a particular algorithm because the thing of importance I have to say is not found down in the weeds, it's found in these three high-level constraints. For the sake of further clarity, I will evaluate the proposals in the fee structure report in the context of these three constraints: Proposal 1: stay the course. Proposal 1 arguably meets constraint 1 but fails abysmally at constraints 2 and 3 Proposal 2: add $64k and $128k IPv4 fee categories. Continues to fail constraint #2 as the disparity narrows from 3 orders of magnitude to "merely" 2. However, a proposal of this character with more boxes and different numbers could meet constraint #2. Does not speak to or meet constraint #3. Proposal 3: Realign IPv6 fee categories. Fails constraint #3. Does not speak to or meet constraints 1 and 2. Proposal 4: Linear IPv4 fee categories. Except it isn't because holdings start at /24 not /20. As specified in appendix A2, proposal 4 meets constraint #1 but continues to fail constraint 2. Were the "doubling" changed to continue down to /24 and up to /6, it would probably meet constraint #2. Proposal 4 does not speak to or meet constraint #3. Proposal 5: algorithmic IPv4 fees. Meets constraint #1. The proposed algorithm very clearly fails to meet constraints 2 and 3. A different algorithm could be selected to meet those constraints. Proposal 6: Flat rate per organization served. Fails to meet constraints 1 and 2. Arguably meets constraint 3 though it does not do so in the scenario where an organization's sole holdings are IPv6 addresses. Proposal 7: transaction-based fees. Not only does this fail to meet the three constraints, it's positively corrupt: an organization is compelled to pay extra for the iterative transactions that it doesn't want in the first place, transactions it engages primarily because ARIN policy requires it. In conclusion: all seven proposals in the report fail to meet at least one of the constraints I propose. Details in several of them could be changed to meet the constraints. Is there further clarity to these proposed -constraints- on a fee structure which you would find helpful? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: May I solve your unusual networking challenges? From jcurran at arin.net Mon Oct 13 00:50:43 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 04:50:43 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: References: <54380828.3020602@arin.net> <1CB1E9B2-7993-406E-9D2D-6EF9A010A2D6@arin.net> <2C8CBAD7-2C8E-4A03-B8FD-AD7A16ABF1BB@arin.net> <0A930FD3-6CC8-4891-85DA-3583435502C1@arin.net> Message-ID: <34B45DD6-6063-4B2C-A5BE-F824888480A8@arin.net> On Oct 12, 2014, at 9:23 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 9:50 PM, John Curran wrote: >> The difference between considering ARIN's governance mechanisms versus >> whatever results from the IANA Stewardship Transition is that one in >> plainly under the control of the ARIN Board of Trustees (as informed >> by this community) whereas the other is quite indeterminate at this >> time and will be shaped by inputs from a wider span of communities >> who deal with other identifier spaces and wider geography. > > John, if you'd like to talk about ARIN governance, I'll go there with > you. Let's discuss whether it's fair that each ISP has only one vote > per registered organization instead of a vote sized based on fees ... Bill - My question was the one you state above: do you feel that those with larger invoices under the fee schedule proposals with much higher fee categories would seek a corresponding larger say in how ARIN is governed? If you have no interest in the question, that's fine. If you'd like to express a view, that's also fine. It is simply a potential factor in consideration of the proposals, and hence worth raising. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Mon Oct 13 01:00:37 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 05:00:37 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: References: <54380828.3020602@arin.net> <963F17ED-40D2-4A29-A759-23CCC1DEF164@arin.net> <34F8A767-5FDD-4696-899A-7530C7BFC0CB@arin.net> Message-ID: <429E2D38-CBA7-4A48-9B7B-55762F284B45@arin.net> On Oct 12, 2014, at 9:47 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > John, I did not make an specific proposal. I expressed three > constraints that I believe any specific proposal must meet in order to > be reasonable both now and in the near future: > > Constraint #1: That the fees be strongly tied to the registrant's > consumption of IPv4 addresses > > Constraint #2: That the annual fee divided by held IPv4 addresses for > each registrant vary by no more than one order of magnitude (10x) > compared to any other registrant. > > Constraint #3: That no fee be based on the assignment of IPv6 > addresses until such a time as IPv6 becomes the dominant protocol on > the Internet. > > I won't be making a specific proposal or suggesting a particular > algorithm because the thing of importance I have to say is not found > down in the weeds, it's found in these three high-level constraints. > > > For the sake of further clarity, I will evaluate the proposals in the > fee structure report in the context of these three constraints: > > Proposal 1: stay the course. Proposal 1 arguably meets constraint 1 > but fails abysmally at constraints 2 and 3 > > Proposal 2: add $64k and $128k IPv4 fee categories. Continues to fail > constraint #2 as the disparity narrows from 3 orders of magnitude to > "merely" 2. However, a proposal of this character with more boxes and > different numbers could meet constraint #2. Does not speak to or meet > constraint #3. > > Proposal 3: Realign IPv6 fee categories. Fails constraint #3. Does not > speak to or meet constraints 1 and 2. > > Proposal 4: Linear IPv4 fee categories. Except it isn't because > holdings start at /24 not /20. As specified in appendix A2, proposal 4 > meets constraint #1 but continues to fail constraint 2. Were the > "doubling" changed to continue down to /24 and up to /6, it would > probably meet constraint #2. Proposal 4 does not speak to or meet > constraint #3. > > Proposal 5: algorithmic IPv4 fees. Meets constraint #1. The proposed > algorithm very clearly fails to meet constraints 2 and 3. A different > algorithm could be selected to meet those constraints. > > Proposal 6: Flat rate per organization served. Fails to meet > constraints 1 and 2. Arguably meets constraint 3 though it does not do > so in the scenario where an organization's sole holdings are IPv6 > addresses. > > Proposal 7: transaction-based fees. Not only does this fail to meet > the three constraints, it's positively corrupt: an organization is > compelled to pay extra for the iterative transactions that it doesn't > want in the first place, transactions it engages primarily because > ARIN policy requires it. > > In conclusion: all seven proposals in the report fail to meet at least > one of the constraints I propose. Details in several of them could be > changed to meet the constraints. > > Is there further clarity to these proposed -constraints- on a fee > structure which you would find helpful? Bill - It would be best for those in the community to discuss the constraints that you have for deeming something a successful proposal, in comparison to their own particular expectations. Thank you for the clear enumeration of your requirements! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From bill at herrin.us Mon Oct 13 01:00:55 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 01:00:55 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: <34B45DD6-6063-4B2C-A5BE-F824888480A8@arin.net> References: <54380828.3020602@arin.net> <1CB1E9B2-7993-406E-9D2D-6EF9A010A2D6@arin.net> <2C8CBAD7-2C8E-4A03-B8FD-AD7A16ABF1BB@arin.net> <0A930FD3-6CC8-4891-85DA-3583435502C1@arin.net> <34B45DD6-6063-4B2C-A5BE-F824888480A8@arin.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:50 AM, John Curran wrote: > My question was the one you state above: do you feel that those with > larger invoices under the fee schedule proposals with much higher > fee categories would seek a corresponding larger say in how ARIN is > governed? Should? Not if they value having the ear of an organization with actual credibility. Would? You're asking the wrong person. -Bill -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: May I solve your unusual networking challenges? From bill at herrin.us Mon Oct 13 01:05:08 2014 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 01:05:08 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: <429E2D38-CBA7-4A48-9B7B-55762F284B45@arin.net> References: <54380828.3020602@arin.net> <963F17ED-40D2-4A29-A759-23CCC1DEF164@arin.net> <34F8A767-5FDD-4696-899A-7530C7BFC0CB@arin.net> <429E2D38-CBA7-4A48-9B7B-55762F284B45@arin.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 1:00 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 12, 2014, at 9:47 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> Constraint #1: That the fees be strongly tied to the registrant's >> consumption of IPv4 addresses >> >> Constraint #2: That the annual fee divided by held IPv4 addresses for >> each registrant vary by no more than one order of magnitude (10x) >> compared to any other registrant. >> >> Constraint #3: That no fee be based on the assignment of IPv6 >> addresses until such a time as IPv6 becomes the dominant protocol on >> the Internet. > It would be best for those in the community to discuss the > constraints that you have for deeming something a successful > proposal, in comparison to their own particular expectations. With that I agree wholeheartedly. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: May I solve your unusual networking challenges? From jcurran at arin.net Mon Oct 13 01:33:03 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 05:33:03 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Very long term no-IPv4 modeling (was: Re: Community Consultation: Future Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule) In-Reply-To: References: <54380828.3020602@arin.net> Message-ID: <5D5BB965-B79B-4426-B6C1-90097E0CBF1D@arin.net> On Oct 11, 2014, at 12:59 PM, John Curran > wrote: Until such time as IPv4 address blocks are being actively returned by organizations (seeking to lower their fees), there is no impact to ARIN's receipts. After that point, ARIN's annual ISP billings drop from approx $12.5 million to zero as increasing number of IPv4 resources are returned. While costs are expected to be lower at that time, some billing adjustment would certainly be necessary. Regarding the potential need to revisit the fee structure in a post-IPv4 world, depending on the IPv6 long-term revenues - I did some followup modeling just to see what revenues look like presently in a world where all ISPs obtain an IPv6 allocation and return their IPv4 resources. Under the present fee structure, at the point of full IPv4 return the present $13.6M ISP revenues would drop to approx $5.7M annually; under the realigned IPv4 proposal the ISP revenues at full IPv4 return would be approximately $3.0M annually. End-user fees (IPv4, IPv6, and ASN maintenance) are approximately $2M today; in a full IPv4 return situation, this would drop by approximately $560K annually. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From info at arin.net Mon Oct 13 15:38:43 2014 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 15:38:43 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Survey and Mailing List Message-ID: <543C2A43.8080904@arin.net> * Cross-posted to arin-announce and arin-ppml. As a part of the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) system, the ARIN community has been called to contribute to the ongoing global multistakeholder discussion on the IANA Stewardship Transition. The feedback from the ARIN community will be part of the contribution provided by the Number Resource Organization (NRO) to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) in response to their recent "Request for Proposals (RFP) for ?IANA? Stewardship Transition Proposal?. ???" https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en We would also like your opinion on number of specific points detailed in a short survey at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/IANA_stewardship This survey will be open from 13 October to 20 October 2014, and the results will be made available to the community on 24 October 2014. We have also created a public mailing list (iana-transition at arin.net) to facilitate open community discussion in the region regarding the IANA Stewardship Transition planning process. We encourage you to subscribe and participate in this dialog by visiting http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition To learn more about this and other mailing lists hosted by ARIN, visit the Mailing List page: https://www.arin.net/participate/mailing_lists/ Regards, John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From info at arin.net Mon Oct 13 15:53:32 2014 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 15:53:32 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Community Consultation on ICG RFP Response Process now Closed Message-ID: <543C2DBC.4050704@arin.net> Thank you to all who participated in the community consultation of the ICG RFP response process for the ARIN region. Based on the feedback received on the consult list and at the ARIN 34 meeting, we have reformulated the survey questions and established a new dedicated mailing list for discussion. The final form of the survey can be found here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/IANA_stewardship This survey will be open from 13 October to 20 October 2014, and the results will be made available to the community on 24 October 2014. We have also created an ARIN public mailing list to facilitate open community discussion in the region regarding the IANA Stewardship Transition planning process. We encourage you to subscribe and participate in this dialog by visiting: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition Regards, John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From owen at delong.com Mon Oct 13 19:14:01 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 16:14:01 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Fwd: [ARIN-Suggestions] New ACSP Suggestion 2014.27: DAILY REPORT OF ARIN-ISSUED AS NUMBERS References: <54396F27.4000300@arin.net> Message-ID: <5F6E7336-7B8D-455F-A8F2-F318ED6215E5@delong.com> I support this suggestion. Owen Begin forwarded message: > From: ARIN > Subject: [ARIN-Suggestions] New ACSP Suggestion 2014.27: DAILY REPORT OF ARIN-ISSUED AS NUMBERS > Date: October 11, 2014 at 10:55:51 PDT > To: arin-suggestions at arin.net > > A new suggestion was received through the ACSP, and was assigned number 2014.27 upon receipt of confirmation. > > The text of the Suggestion is available at: https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/suggestions/2014-27.html > > ARIN will issue an initial response within 10 business days. > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > *** > Suggestion: > > At the moment IPv4 and IPv6 prefix assignments and removals are listed daily on the ARIN issued list. New AS number assignments are not currently listed anywhere at the moment. > > It would be nice to have the ASNs which were assigned in a day also on either ARIN issued, or another list for ASN assignments if its decided that ASNs would not be appropriate on the ARIN-issued list. > > Value to Community: The value to the community by listing the daily assigned ASNs, would be to those who closely monitor the validity of routes, via as-path, for impossible combinations. There are currently services for IPv4/IPv6 like the cymru bogons feed, > http://www.team-cymru.org/Services/Bogons/ > _______________________________________________ > arin-suggestions mailing list > arin-suggestions at arin.net > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-suggestions -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jesse at la-broadband.com Tue Oct 14 13:43:36 2014 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse Geddis) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 10:43:36 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Community Consultation: Future Direction for the ARIN Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: <3293794e35264040b8101dd86ebd50c6@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> References: <54380828.3020602@arin.net> <3293794e35264040b8101dd86ebd50c6@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <4BA3971C-F70B-4947-9BFE-9D71218C2FAC@la-broadband.com> David and Jon, I can?t appreciate your guy?s support on #4 enough. Jon was the one who put together the numbers with me and did a phenomenal job. There were a few specific goals I was after and it sounds like they are well understood as you caught many of the main points in your email here. All of these items were of the utmost importance. Jon?s email on the topic on 10/10/14 was also excellent. A couple other things i was after was making it financially accessible for startups and trying to address the gross waste and hoarding we see today. This is a true pay-as-you-grow model The non-profit portion is important as well, however, ARIN does not currently track who is non-profit and who is not so it was impossible to model these numbers. I hope that is addressed at some point. in short, this is a neutral and even handed approach that I think benefits the community greatly. Jesse On Oct 12, 2014, at 8:45 PM, David Huberman wrote: > Hello, > > I strongly endorse Proposal 4. Before I go into why, I'd like to note that I think that Proposal 6 and especially Proposal 7 would have been great 10 or 20 years ago. They're equitable in many ways and from many perspectives. I think they are untenable in 2014 due to the severe rate increase on the vast majority of ARIN's paying customers. > > That said, Proposal 4 is very attractive. Why do I think it is attractive? > > 1) It adds a dose of financial reality to the fee schedule - the more you have, the more you pay. > > 2) It considers a waiver of some sort for not-for-profits/government/educational, which should have been there all along. Again, financial reality found commonly in the North American economies that ARIN has lacked for 17 years. > > 3) The 54 biggest consumers of IPv4 addresses over the last 17 years are evenly distributed among the 50k -> 400k fee buckets. At the highest tiers, the 200k and 400k buckets, these companies are already paying tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in the free market for IPv4, so this money isn't significant. Microsoft, Akamai, Google, Amazon, AT&T, Comcast, etc. -- they can absorb this budget line item increase. > > 4) Most paying members see a decrease in fees. That's excellent. That would be the 4th fee decrease ARIN has given the membership, I think. > > 5) It removes the IPv6 fee schedule disparity. A /32 costs $400, which is less than what most folks already pay. BIG win. > > 6) It's budget neutral.[1] $16.5mm in annual fees based on this year's numbers is about where we're at already. The analysis shows $918k more, but ARIN has run a budget deficit the last few years (or the recent years I looked). > > [1]This "budget neutral" statement is made without knowing the extent of the waivers/fee reductions for not-for-profits, educational institutions, and governments. They could be significant. I support the waiver idea, but the analysis in the Appendix does not seem to consider it in its calculations, which is fine. > > That's my input. From reading the document, it's clear to me the Board has finally taken to heart the need to remove the IPv6 disincentive that it has ignored for 15 years. That makes me happy. > > Regards, > David > > David R Huberman > Microsoft Corporation > Principal, Global IP Addressing > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jcurran at arin.net Sat Oct 25 10:06:50 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 14:06:50 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] ARIN is seeking volunteers to serve as regional representatives to the CRISP team Message-ID: Folks - Folks - ARIN is seeking volunteers to join the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team as representatives of the ARIN region. The CRISP team will be responsible for producing the IANA Stewardship transition proposal from the Number Community by 15 January 2015. For background and details of the CRISP Team, please see the NRO website: For background on the IANA Stewardship Transition planning process, please refer to the website of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) - Each RIR region will appoint 3 members to the CRISP Team, including two volunteer community representatives and one RIR staff member. Community members who are interested in serving on the CRISP team should notify me > by 31 October 2014. After that date, the list of those who volunteered will be published to the iana-transition at arin.net mailing list and the ARIN Board of Trustees will appoint 2 volunteers from the list to serve on the CRISP team. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: