From info at arin.net  Wed Feb 14 12:57:46 2024
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 12:57:46 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder on ARIN Consultation on RPKI/BGP
Message-ID: <07BAF9A3-0991-4C33-8A94-6A741BC8F57B@arin.net>

ARIN would like to remind the community about the ongoing consultation on Resource Public Key Infrastructure/BGP intelligence. This consultation is slated to close on Thursday, 29 February. Please be sure to submit your comments to the arin-consult mailing list before then.

Read the full text of the consultation at: https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2024/2024-1/

As of 14 February, we have received very few comments from the community regarding this consultation. We believe adding this feature would benefit many ARIN customers, and we are seeking input from our community for any additional information or capabilities that should be included in this proposed functionality development. 

If you have feedback you?d like to share with ARIN, please provide it to the arin-consult mailing list via arin-consult at arin.net. You may subscribe to this mailing list at https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult. ARIN will use the feedback provided to determine how we move forward with improvements to our routing security services.

Thank you for your participation in this community consultation. 

Regards,

John Curran 
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)




From bill at herrin.us  Wed Feb 14 13:57:44 2024
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 10:57:44 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder on ARIN Consultation on RPKI/BGP
In-Reply-To: <07BAF9A3-0991-4C33-8A94-6A741BC8F57B@arin.net>
References: <07BAF9A3-0991-4C33-8A94-6A741BC8F57B@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGVOuXAWWmD-LKb+N2Nh=d2SyjOGr9O4vtJz9D55VHtHfQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 9:57?AM ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
> As of 14 February, we have received very few comments
> from the community regarding this consultation. We believe
> adding this feature would benefit many ARIN customers,
> and we are seeking input from our community for any
> additional information or capabilities that should be included
> in this proposed functionality development.

> a new RPKI dashboard that will allow a user to view the current
> RPKI validity state and the resulting impact to routing for the
> resources covered by the ROA.

Hi John,

I mean, sure, it can't hurt, but there are other resources for folks
who want to compare their announcements against their ROAs and even
get alerts upon detection of invalid routes. I can offer a resounding,
"I do not care. This would be of limited use to me."

The elephant in the room isn't hosted RPKI users' ability to check
their ROAs, it's the very large number of registrations held at ARIN
which are ineligible for RPKI altogether. Until that changes, RPKI's
overall utility will remain significantly impaired.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



--
William Herrin
bill at herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/


From matthew.wilder at telus.com  Wed Feb 14 13:58:06 2024
From: matthew.wilder at telus.com (Matthew Wilder)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 10:58:06 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder on ARIN Consultation on RPKI/BGP
In-Reply-To: <07BAF9A3-0991-4C33-8A94-6A741BC8F57B@arin.net>
References: <07BAF9A3-0991-4C33-8A94-6A741BC8F57B@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAGbMP+gpTxrahoOvWLYDK6zUyaFR1PozQiOj2xHKr8ES7z1W6Q@mail.gmail.com>

I think this would be a natural and beneficial development to help make
RPKI even more accessible to ARIN members. This is in the interest of the
entire Internet community. I whole-heartedly support the creation of the
dashboard described in the consultation.

Regards,
Matthew Wilder
TELUS


On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 9:58?AM ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:

> ARIN would like to remind the community about the ongoing consultation on
> Resource Public Key Infrastructure/BGP intelligence. This consultation is
> slated to close on Thursday, 29 February. Please be sure to submit your
> comments to the arin-consult mailing list before then.
>
> Read the full text of the consultation at:
> https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2024/2024-1/
>
> As of 14 February, we have received very few comments from the community
> regarding this consultation. We believe adding this feature would benefit
> many ARIN customers, and we are seeking input from our community for any
> additional information or capabilities that should be included in this
> proposed functionality development.
>
> If you have feedback you?d like to share with ARIN, please provide it to
> the arin-consult mailing list via arin-consult at arin.net. You may
> subscribe to this mailing list at
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult. ARIN will use the
> feedback provided to determine how we move forward with improvements to our
> routing security services.
>
> Thank you for your participation in this community consultation.
>
> 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:
> https://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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20240214/db87a1d0/attachment.htm>

From deraadt at openbsd.org  Wed Feb 14 14:06:59 2024
From: deraadt at openbsd.org (Theo de Raadt)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 12:06:59 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder on ARIN Consultation on RPKI/BGP
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVOuXAWWmD-LKb+N2Nh=d2SyjOGr9O4vtJz9D55VHtHfQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <07BAF9A3-0991-4C33-8A94-6A741BC8F57B@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVOuXAWWmD-LKb+N2Nh=d2SyjOGr9O4vtJz9D55VHtHfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <68468.1707937619@cvs.openbsd.org>

William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> I mean, sure, it can't hurt, but there are other resources for folks
> who want to compare their announcements against their ROAs and even
> get alerts upon detection of invalid routes. I can offer a resounding,
> "I do not care. This would be of limited use to me."

Indeed.

The other tools are better because they provide overview of MANY of
routing aspects -- rather than the incredibly narrow viewpoint an ARIN
tool would show.

> The elephant in the room isn't hosted RPKI users' ability to check
> their ROAs, it's the very large number of registrations held at ARIN
> which are ineligible for RPKI altogether. Until that changes, RPKI's
> overall utility will remain significantly impaired.

No kidding.  I'll hold back on writing more about this.


From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Feb 14 14:14:52 2024
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 19:14:52 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder on ARIN Consultation on RPKI/BGP
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVOuXAWWmD-LKb+N2Nh=d2SyjOGr9O4vtJz9D55VHtHfQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <07BAF9A3-0991-4C33-8A94-6A741BC8F57B@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVOuXAWWmD-LKb+N2Nh=d2SyjOGr9O4vtJz9D55VHtHfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8732B27F-E429-421E-9C29-5115212836DB@arin.net>


> On Feb 14, 2024, at 1:57?PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> I mean, sure, it can't hurt, but there are other resources for folks
> who want to compare their announcements against their ROAs and even
> get alerts upon detection of invalid routes. I can offer a resounding,
> "I do not care. This would be of limited use to me."

Bill - 

Good to know - I suspect that many of those who are familiar with other tools available 
already have sufficient knowledge of RPKI (at least with regard to issuing ROAs) ? and 
hence aren?t necessarily the target audience for the proposed improvements. 

> The elephant in the room isn't hosted RPKI users' ability to check
> their ROAs, it's the very large number of registrations held at ARIN
> which are ineligible for RPKI altogether. Until that changes, RPKI's
> overall utility will remain significantly impaired.


That?s not a chronic condition - such folks can readily enter into an RSA and not only 
obtain contractual certainty regarding their number resources, but also gain access to 
ARIN?s more advanced routing services such as RPKI and authenticated IRR.  

I?ll note that the number of number resources in the ARIN registry not under registration 
services agreement continues to decrease (currently just under 31%) so the problem 
you cite is indeed diminishing over time. 

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers



From bill at herrin.us  Wed Feb 14 14:16:36 2024
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 11:16:36 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder on ARIN Consultation on RPKI/BGP
In-Reply-To: <68468.1707937619@cvs.openbsd.org>
References: <07BAF9A3-0991-4C33-8A94-6A741BC8F57B@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVOuXAWWmD-LKb+N2Nh=d2SyjOGr9O4vtJz9D55VHtHfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <68468.1707937619@cvs.openbsd.org>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGXYX1EGsMxomNSXtW7ukupc1WSFpn9JEHc_1McHaXkrcA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 11:07?AM Theo de Raadt <deraadt at openbsd.org> wrote:
> The other tools are better because they provide overview of MANY of
> routing aspects -- rather than the incredibly narrow viewpoint an ARIN
> tool would show.

Well, I would hope that ARIN would partner with Routeviews and RIPE
RIS to source the routing data they use for the dashboard. Give them
some credit.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
bill at herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/


From bill at herrin.us  Wed Feb 14 14:25:21 2024
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 11:25:21 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder on ARIN Consultation on RPKI/BGP
In-Reply-To: <8732B27F-E429-421E-9C29-5115212836DB@arin.net>
References: <07BAF9A3-0991-4C33-8A94-6A741BC8F57B@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVOuXAWWmD-LKb+N2Nh=d2SyjOGr9O4vtJz9D55VHtHfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8732B27F-E429-421E-9C29-5115212836DB@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGXi2C=T22UmLH9dWNEXhmBnDf-W3NLAgwdvf1cOsK-J-w@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 11:14?AM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> That?s not a chronic condition - such folks can readily enter into an RSA and not only
> obtain contractual certainty regarding their number resources, but also gain access to
> ARIN?s more advanced routing services such as RPKI and authenticated IRR.

Hi John,

Nothing but ARIN internal politics stops you from offering an IRR+RKPI
service independent of the registration service. Heck, 13 of the 18
IRRs already do.

For that matter, nothing stops any of those 13 IRRs from publishing a
trust anchor and offering RPKI services. I wonder that none of them
do.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
bill at herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/


From deraadt at openbsd.org  Wed Feb 14 14:27:27 2024
From: deraadt at openbsd.org (Theo de Raadt)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 12:27:27 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder on ARIN Consultation on RPKI/BGP
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGXi2C=T22UmLH9dWNEXhmBnDf-W3NLAgwdvf1cOsK-J-w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <07BAF9A3-0991-4C33-8A94-6A741BC8F57B@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVOuXAWWmD-LKb+N2Nh=d2SyjOGr9O4vtJz9D55VHtHfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8732B27F-E429-421E-9C29-5115212836DB@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXi2C=T22UmLH9dWNEXhmBnDf-W3NLAgwdvf1cOsK-J-w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7012.1707938847@cvs.openbsd.org>

William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 11:14?AM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> > That?s not a chronic condition - such folks can readily enter into an RSA and not only
> > obtain contractual certainty regarding their number resources, but also gain access to
> > ARIN?s more advanced routing services such as RPKI and authenticated IRR.
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> Nothing but ARIN internal politics stops you from offering an IRR+RKPI
> service independent of the registration service. Heck, 13 of the 18
> IRRs already do.
> 
> For that matter, nothing stops any of those 13 IRRs from publishing a
> trust anchor and offering RPKI services. I wonder that none of them
> do.

Wiliam,

Monetization prevents it.

Cheers.


From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Feb 14 14:40:18 2024
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 19:40:18 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder on ARIN Consultation on RPKI/BGP
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGXi2C=T22UmLH9dWNEXhmBnDf-W3NLAgwdvf1cOsK-J-w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <07BAF9A3-0991-4C33-8A94-6A741BC8F57B@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVOuXAWWmD-LKb+N2Nh=d2SyjOGr9O4vtJz9D55VHtHfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8732B27F-E429-421E-9C29-5115212836DB@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXi2C=T22UmLH9dWNEXhmBnDf-W3NLAgwdvf1cOsK-J-w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AE87C13A-6E3F-458F-8047-39AABC749DB1@arin.net>


> On Feb 14, 2024, at 2:25?PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> 
> For that matter, nothing stops any of those 13 IRRs from publishing a
> trust anchor and offering RPKI services. I wonder that none of them
> do.

Bill - 

The abundance of IRRs (with varying levels of authorization controls) has resulted in rather
ambiguous provenance for many route objects in aggregate system.  I.e., it would be prudent 
to seek community discussion and consensus before reproduction of that ?feature? within the 
RPKI ecosystem. 

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers


From bill at herrin.us  Wed Feb 14 14:54:46 2024
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 11:54:46 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder on ARIN Consultation on RPKI/BGP
In-Reply-To: <AE87C13A-6E3F-458F-8047-39AABC749DB1@arin.net>
References: <07BAF9A3-0991-4C33-8A94-6A741BC8F57B@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVOuXAWWmD-LKb+N2Nh=d2SyjOGr9O4vtJz9D55VHtHfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8732B27F-E429-421E-9C29-5115212836DB@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXi2C=T22UmLH9dWNEXhmBnDf-W3NLAgwdvf1cOsK-J-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <AE87C13A-6E3F-458F-8047-39AABC749DB1@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGWHk+wMDaZYKNbgwUmLUO=aq49oDyawKE2GsrJEabS01A@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 11:40?AM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> > On Feb 14, 2024, at 2:25?PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> > For that matter, nothing stops any of those 13 IRRs from publishing a
> > trust anchor and offering RPKI services. I wonder that none of them
> > do.
>
> The abundance of IRRs (with varying levels of authorization controls) has resulted in rather
> ambiguous provenance for many route objects in aggregate system.  I.e., it would be prudent
> to seek community discussion and consensus before reproduction of that ?feature? within the
> RPKI ecosystem.

Hi John,

There'd be nothing to discuss if ARIN, alone among the RIRs, wasn't
holding a third of the registrations under its management as
"ineligible."

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
bill at herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/


From bill at herrin.us  Wed Feb 14 15:06:12 2024
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 12:06:12 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder on ARIN Consultation on RPKI/BGP
In-Reply-To: <8732B27F-E429-421E-9C29-5115212836DB@arin.net>
References: <07BAF9A3-0991-4C33-8A94-6A741BC8F57B@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVOuXAWWmD-LKb+N2Nh=d2SyjOGr9O4vtJz9D55VHtHfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8732B27F-E429-421E-9C29-5115212836DB@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGWk2RK4nky7Fh3prNcnG-k5cAOCq79H4bcDR5YD_tcFUg@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 11:14?AM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> I?ll note that the number of number resources in the ARIN registry not under registration
> services agreement continues to decrease (currently just under 31%) so the problem
> you cite is indeed diminishing over time.

Hi John,

That's 31% by registration count, right? Do you have the number by IP
address count?

Thanks,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
bill at herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/


From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Feb 14 15:12:22 2024
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 20:12:22 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder on ARIN Consultation on RPKI/BGP
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWHk+wMDaZYKNbgwUmLUO=aq49oDyawKE2GsrJEabS01A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <07BAF9A3-0991-4C33-8A94-6A741BC8F57B@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVOuXAWWmD-LKb+N2Nh=d2SyjOGr9O4vtJz9D55VHtHfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8732B27F-E429-421E-9C29-5115212836DB@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXi2C=T22UmLH9dWNEXhmBnDf-W3NLAgwdvf1cOsK-J-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <AE87C13A-6E3F-458F-8047-39AABC749DB1@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGWHk+wMDaZYKNbgwUmLUO=aq49oDyawKE2GsrJEabS01A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D69CACEE-C451-49F6-95D9-C54AE6B01BB7@arin.net>


On Feb 14, 2024, at 2:54?PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 11:40?AM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
On Feb 14, 2024, at 2:25?PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
For that matter, nothing stops any of those 13 IRRs from publishing a
trust anchor and offering RPKI services. I wonder that none of them
do.

The abundance of IRRs (with varying levels of authorization controls) has resulted in rather
ambiguous provenance for many route objects in aggregate system.  I.e., it would be prudent
to seek community discussion and consensus before reproduction of that ?feature? within the
RPKI ecosystem.

Hi John,

There'd be nothing to discuss if ARIN, alone among the RIRs, wasn't
holding a third of the registrations under its management as
"ineligible.?

Bill ?

I believe that this has been discussed at length, but in brief ?  yes, you are correct that ARIN?s
more advanced routing services (which involve significant investment of members funds) are only
made available to those who have brought their resources under agreement.

We continue to provide basic registry services to those with early registrations not under contract
(registry services including updates via ARIN Online, whois publication, reverse DNS, etc.) ? and
have done so for more than 25 years ? but our goal is equitable terms and fees for all of ARIN?s
customers.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20240214/ede196ac/attachment.htm>

From bill at herrin.us  Wed Feb 14 15:18:10 2024
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 12:18:10 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder on ARIN Consultation on RPKI/BGP
In-Reply-To: <D69CACEE-C451-49F6-95D9-C54AE6B01BB7@arin.net>
References: <07BAF9A3-0991-4C33-8A94-6A741BC8F57B@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVOuXAWWmD-LKb+N2Nh=d2SyjOGr9O4vtJz9D55VHtHfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8732B27F-E429-421E-9C29-5115212836DB@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXi2C=T22UmLH9dWNEXhmBnDf-W3NLAgwdvf1cOsK-J-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <AE87C13A-6E3F-458F-8047-39AABC749DB1@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGWHk+wMDaZYKNbgwUmLUO=aq49oDyawKE2GsrJEabS01A@mail.gmail.com>
 <D69CACEE-C451-49F6-95D9-C54AE6B01BB7@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGW62WH3Pc8Ah14LWApJwOXso0FRVjDpLWXH8suxGz8OQg@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 12:12?PM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> our goal is equitable terms and fees for all of ARIN?s
> customers.

Hi John,

Shouldn't ARIN's goal be maximizing the utility of its services to the
ARIN membership? Does hamstringing global use of RPKI serve those
members well?

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
bill at herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/


From bill at herrin.us  Wed Feb 14 15:25:19 2024
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 12:25:19 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder on ARIN Consultation on RPKI/BGP
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGW62WH3Pc8Ah14LWApJwOXso0FRVjDpLWXH8suxGz8OQg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <07BAF9A3-0991-4C33-8A94-6A741BC8F57B@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVOuXAWWmD-LKb+N2Nh=d2SyjOGr9O4vtJz9D55VHtHfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8732B27F-E429-421E-9C29-5115212836DB@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXi2C=T22UmLH9dWNEXhmBnDf-W3NLAgwdvf1cOsK-J-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <AE87C13A-6E3F-458F-8047-39AABC749DB1@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGWHk+wMDaZYKNbgwUmLUO=aq49oDyawKE2GsrJEabS01A@mail.gmail.com>
 <D69CACEE-C451-49F6-95D9-C54AE6B01BB7@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGW62WH3Pc8Ah14LWApJwOXso0FRVjDpLWXH8suxGz8OQg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGXbk3-WD-H_+WYLcnXi+90m5c=BuMgG2SQMoLWDCbUSnA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 12:18?PM William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 12:12?PM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> > our goal is equitable terms and fees for all of ARIN?s
> > customers.
>
> Shouldn't ARIN's goal be maximizing the utility of its services to the
> ARIN membership? Does hamstringing global use of RPKI serve those
> members well?

So, I'm being pretty hard on John here, but I know that ultimately he
endeavors to do the things ARIN's members want done. If, like me, you
want RPKI to be useful regardless of the "equity" of ARIN's terms of
service, it would be helpful if you said so to John.

On another tangent - no one proposes (or at the least, I did not
propose) providing RPKI service to anyone for free. So you can take
"fees" out of your defense and just stick with "equitable terms."

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
bill at herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/


From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Feb 14 15:26:03 2024
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 20:26:03 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder on ARIN Consultation on RPKI/BGP
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGW62WH3Pc8Ah14LWApJwOXso0FRVjDpLWXH8suxGz8OQg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <07BAF9A3-0991-4C33-8A94-6A741BC8F57B@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVOuXAWWmD-LKb+N2Nh=d2SyjOGr9O4vtJz9D55VHtHfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8732B27F-E429-421E-9C29-5115212836DB@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXi2C=T22UmLH9dWNEXhmBnDf-W3NLAgwdvf1cOsK-J-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <AE87C13A-6E3F-458F-8047-39AABC749DB1@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGWHk+wMDaZYKNbgwUmLUO=aq49oDyawKE2GsrJEabS01A@mail.gmail.com>
 <D69CACEE-C451-49F6-95D9-C54AE6B01BB7@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGW62WH3Pc8Ah14LWApJwOXso0FRVjDpLWXH8suxGz8OQg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <39A8652B-175A-4507-9AD2-C777075C8FDD@arin.net>

On Feb 14, 2024, at 3:18?PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 12:12?PM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> our goal is equitable terms and fees for all of ARIN?s
>> customers.
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> Shouldn't ARIN's goal be maximizing the utility of its services to the
> ARIN membership? Does hamstringing global use of RPKI serve those
> members well?

We have no control over those who choose not to utilize IRR or RPKI services ? 
while we have many many changes to make it easier to enter into the RSA 
(and also many changes to utilize ARIN?s RPKI services), in the end it is still
each customer's choice regarding what services make sense for them. 

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers


From bill at herrin.us  Wed Feb 14 15:32:22 2024
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 12:32:22 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder on ARIN Consultation on RPKI/BGP
In-Reply-To: <39A8652B-175A-4507-9AD2-C777075C8FDD@arin.net>
References: <07BAF9A3-0991-4C33-8A94-6A741BC8F57B@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVOuXAWWmD-LKb+N2Nh=d2SyjOGr9O4vtJz9D55VHtHfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8732B27F-E429-421E-9C29-5115212836DB@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXi2C=T22UmLH9dWNEXhmBnDf-W3NLAgwdvf1cOsK-J-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <AE87C13A-6E3F-458F-8047-39AABC749DB1@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGWHk+wMDaZYKNbgwUmLUO=aq49oDyawKE2GsrJEabS01A@mail.gmail.com>
 <D69CACEE-C451-49F6-95D9-C54AE6B01BB7@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGW62WH3Pc8Ah14LWApJwOXso0FRVjDpLWXH8suxGz8OQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <39A8652B-175A-4507-9AD2-C777075C8FDD@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGXgwziBk0A0Rm6sGW-xmAuZ22071Pib+iqky0AhTgn2bg@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 12:26?PM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> We have no control over those who choose not to utilize IRR or RPKI services ?
> while we have many many changes to make it easier to enter into the RSA
> (and also many changes to utilize ARIN?s RPKI services), in the end it is still
> each customer's choice regarding what services make sense for them.

Hi John,

The Registration Services Agreement currently doesn't make sense,
according to your numbers, to the registrants of 31% of the
registrations you hold. Maybe you're doing it wrong.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
bill at herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/


From rlaager at wiktel.com  Wed Feb 14 15:42:19 2024
From: rlaager at wiktel.com (Richard Laager)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 14:42:19 -0600
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder on ARIN Consultation on RPKI/BGP
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGXgwziBk0A0Rm6sGW-xmAuZ22071Pib+iqky0AhTgn2bg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <07BAF9A3-0991-4C33-8A94-6A741BC8F57B@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVOuXAWWmD-LKb+N2Nh=d2SyjOGr9O4vtJz9D55VHtHfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8732B27F-E429-421E-9C29-5115212836DB@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXi2C=T22UmLH9dWNEXhmBnDf-W3NLAgwdvf1cOsK-J-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <AE87C13A-6E3F-458F-8047-39AABC749DB1@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGWHk+wMDaZYKNbgwUmLUO=aq49oDyawKE2GsrJEabS01A@mail.gmail.com>
 <D69CACEE-C451-49F6-95D9-C54AE6B01BB7@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGW62WH3Pc8Ah14LWApJwOXso0FRVjDpLWXH8suxGz8OQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <39A8652B-175A-4507-9AD2-C777075C8FDD@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXgwziBk0A0Rm6sGW-xmAuZ22071Pib+iqky0AhTgn2bg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3b385b03-63c0-4137-b658-305480279d5b@wiktel.com>

On 2024-02-14 14:32, William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 12:26?PM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> We have no control over those who choose not to utilize IRR or RPKI services ?
>> while we have many many changes to make it easier to enter into the RSA
>> (and also many changes to utilize ARIN?s RPKI services), in the end it is still
>> each customer's choice regarding what services make sense for them.
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> The Registration Services Agreement currently doesn't make sense,
> according to your numbers, to the registrants of 31% of the
> registrations you hold. Maybe you're doing it wrong.

Which is the (major) issue:

A) Legacy registrants can't be bothered to do anything.
B) Legacy registrants don't want to pay the same fees.
C) Legacy registrants don't want to give up the idea that they might 
"own" the resources.

You (Bill) have indicate it's not B. Also, if it was B, then they should 
have already signed under the older LRSA that capped their fee increases.

So it seems to me that it's either A, C, or something else.

-- 
Richard



From bill at herrin.us  Wed Feb 14 16:01:50 2024
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 13:01:50 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder on ARIN Consultation on RPKI/BGP
In-Reply-To: <3b385b03-63c0-4137-b658-305480279d5b@wiktel.com>
References: <07BAF9A3-0991-4C33-8A94-6A741BC8F57B@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVOuXAWWmD-LKb+N2Nh=d2SyjOGr9O4vtJz9D55VHtHfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8732B27F-E429-421E-9C29-5115212836DB@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXi2C=T22UmLH9dWNEXhmBnDf-W3NLAgwdvf1cOsK-J-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <AE87C13A-6E3F-458F-8047-39AABC749DB1@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGWHk+wMDaZYKNbgwUmLUO=aq49oDyawKE2GsrJEabS01A@mail.gmail.com>
 <D69CACEE-C451-49F6-95D9-C54AE6B01BB7@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGW62WH3Pc8Ah14LWApJwOXso0FRVjDpLWXH8suxGz8OQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <39A8652B-175A-4507-9AD2-C777075C8FDD@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXgwziBk0A0Rm6sGW-xmAuZ22071Pib+iqky0AhTgn2bg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3b385b03-63c0-4137-b658-305480279d5b@wiktel.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGUZ8r8qWUHcDFBjU3wqwHxvKHi031XcK-XPPx=BQ62tOQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 12:42?PM Richard Laager <rlaager at wiktel.com> wrote:
> Which is the (major) issue:
>
> A) Legacy registrants can't be bothered to do anything.
> B) Legacy registrants don't want to pay the same fees.
> C) Legacy registrants don't want to give up the idea that they might
> "own" the resources.
>
> You (Bill) have indicate it's not B. Also, if it was B, then they should
> have already signed under the older LRSA that capped their fee increases.
>
> So it seems to me that it's either A, C, or something else.

Hi Richard,

Let me answer your question with a question: how many registrants have
to fall into category C before RPKI would be more useful to you if
they published ROAs? 10? 100? 1000?

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
bill at herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/


From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Feb 14 16:31:08 2024
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 21:31:08 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder on ARIN Consultation on RPKI/BGP
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGXgwziBk0A0Rm6sGW-xmAuZ22071Pib+iqky0AhTgn2bg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <07BAF9A3-0991-4C33-8A94-6A741BC8F57B@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVOuXAWWmD-LKb+N2Nh=d2SyjOGr9O4vtJz9D55VHtHfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8732B27F-E429-421E-9C29-5115212836DB@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXi2C=T22UmLH9dWNEXhmBnDf-W3NLAgwdvf1cOsK-J-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <AE87C13A-6E3F-458F-8047-39AABC749DB1@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGWHk+wMDaZYKNbgwUmLUO=aq49oDyawKE2GsrJEabS01A@mail.gmail.com>
 <D69CACEE-C451-49F6-95D9-C54AE6B01BB7@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGW62WH3Pc8Ah14LWApJwOXso0FRVjDpLWXH8suxGz8OQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <39A8652B-175A-4507-9AD2-C777075C8FDD@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXgwziBk0A0Rm6sGW-xmAuZ22071Pib+iqky0AhTgn2bg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9F048678-0AD8-4D83-909C-30B336C74CFD@arin.net>


> On Feb 14, 2024, at 3:32?PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> 
> The Registration Services Agreement currently doesn't make sense,
> according to your numbers, to the registrants of 31% of the
> registrations you hold. Maybe you're doing it wrong.

It was 100% not under agreement when ARIN was formed, and 50% just a few years back, 
and it is now 29.8% today (and still dropping?)   

There are some organizations that that believe that they may have rights that exceed those 
expressed in the RSA ? while I find that rather fanciful, it?s certainly their choice, but it also 
comes with consequences ? choose wisely. 

(and if you have any further input on the topic of the consultation, it would be most welcome.)

Thanks! 
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers






From ross at tajvar.io  Wed Feb 14 16:32:51 2024
From: ross at tajvar.io (Ross Tajvar)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 16:32:51 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder on ARIN Consultation on RPKI/BGP
In-Reply-To: <3b385b03-63c0-4137-b658-305480279d5b@wiktel.com>
References: <07BAF9A3-0991-4C33-8A94-6A741BC8F57B@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVOuXAWWmD-LKb+N2Nh=d2SyjOGr9O4vtJz9D55VHtHfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8732B27F-E429-421E-9C29-5115212836DB@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXi2C=T22UmLH9dWNEXhmBnDf-W3NLAgwdvf1cOsK-J-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <AE87C13A-6E3F-458F-8047-39AABC749DB1@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGWHk+wMDaZYKNbgwUmLUO=aq49oDyawKE2GsrJEabS01A@mail.gmail.com>
 <D69CACEE-C451-49F6-95D9-C54AE6B01BB7@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGW62WH3Pc8Ah14LWApJwOXso0FRVjDpLWXH8suxGz8OQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <39A8652B-175A-4507-9AD2-C777075C8FDD@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXgwziBk0A0Rm6sGW-xmAuZ22071Pib+iqky0AhTgn2bg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3b385b03-63c0-4137-b658-305480279d5b@wiktel.com>
Message-ID: <CA+FDdDS+m0mkPXXdEiqkbiCaXyqJY_HKotrj6otP=Z0TSTFyAA@mail.gmail.com>

Anecdotally, when I was in a position to make the decision for my employer
to sign an LRSA, I chose not to do so because of C.

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024, 3:42?PM Richard Laager <rlaager at wiktel.com> wrote:

> On 2024-02-14 14:32, William Herrin wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 12:26?PM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> >> We have no control over those who choose not to utilize IRR or RPKI
> services ?
> >> while we have many many changes to make it easier to enter into the RSA
> >> (and also many changes to utilize ARIN?s RPKI services), in the end it
> is still
> >> each customer's choice regarding what services make sense for them.
> >
> > Hi John,
> >
> > The Registration Services Agreement currently doesn't make sense,
> > according to your numbers, to the registrants of 31% of the
> > registrations you hold. Maybe you're doing it wrong.
>
> Which is the (major) issue:
>
> A) Legacy registrants can't be bothered to do anything.
> B) Legacy registrants don't want to pay the same fees.
> C) Legacy registrants don't want to give up the idea that they might
> "own" the resources.
>
> You (Bill) have indicate it's not B. Also, if it was B, then they should
> have already signed under the older LRSA that capped their fee increases.
>
> So it seems to me that it's either A, C, or something else.
>
> --
> Richard
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> https://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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20240214/49773860/attachment.htm>

From rlaager at wiktel.com  Wed Feb 14 16:45:05 2024
From: rlaager at wiktel.com (Richard Laager)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 15:45:05 -0600
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder on ARIN Consultation on RPKI/BGP
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGUZ8r8qWUHcDFBjU3wqwHxvKHi031XcK-XPPx=BQ62tOQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <07BAF9A3-0991-4C33-8A94-6A741BC8F57B@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVOuXAWWmD-LKb+N2Nh=d2SyjOGr9O4vtJz9D55VHtHfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8732B27F-E429-421E-9C29-5115212836DB@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXi2C=T22UmLH9dWNEXhmBnDf-W3NLAgwdvf1cOsK-J-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <AE87C13A-6E3F-458F-8047-39AABC749DB1@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGWHk+wMDaZYKNbgwUmLUO=aq49oDyawKE2GsrJEabS01A@mail.gmail.com>
 <D69CACEE-C451-49F6-95D9-C54AE6B01BB7@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGW62WH3Pc8Ah14LWApJwOXso0FRVjDpLWXH8suxGz8OQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <39A8652B-175A-4507-9AD2-C777075C8FDD@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXgwziBk0A0Rm6sGW-xmAuZ22071Pib+iqky0AhTgn2bg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3b385b03-63c0-4137-b658-305480279d5b@wiktel.com>
 <CAP-guGUZ8r8qWUHcDFBjU3wqwHxvKHi031XcK-XPPx=BQ62tOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a9f10495-df18-4001-adc5-8e48b3eb0448@wiktel.com>

On 2024-02-14 14:55, Theo de Raadt wrote:
 >> You (Bill) have indicate it's not B

 > I can't find that anywhere in the thread.

I was referring to this:

On 2024-02-14 14:25, William Herrin wrote:
 > On another tangent - no one proposes (or at the least, I did not
 > propose) providing RPKI service to anyone for free.

On 2024-02-14 15:01, William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 12:42?PM Richard Laager <rlaager at wiktel.com> wrote:
>> Which is the (major) issue:
>>
>> A) Legacy registrants can't be bothered to do anything.
>> B) Legacy registrants don't want to pay the same fees.
>> C) Legacy registrants don't want to give up the idea that they might
>> "own" the resources.
>>
>> You (Bill) have indicate it's not B. Also, if it was B, then they should
>> have already signed under the older LRSA that capped their fee increases.
>>
>> So it seems to me that it's either A, C, or something else.
> 
> Hi Richard,
> 
> Let me answer your question with a question: how many registrants have
> to fall into category C before RPKI would be more useful to you if
> they published ROAs? 10? 100? 1000?

In a pedantically literal sense, I suppose 1 is "more useful". As a 
practical matter, I'm not sure where the realistic breakpoint is.

In this subthread, we are talking about whether a legacy resource holder 
can issue ROAs for their legacy space, not whether others honor my ROAs. 
So the risk this helps mitigate is the legacy resource holder's space 
being hijacked. By definition, to whatever extent that risk affects me 
(my traffic to them being hijacked), it affects them too, symmetrically. 
The impact to them is thus the sum of the impacts to everyone else 
trying to talk to them. So they have far more incentive.


There are many times that other networks do things that cause me 
problems. Such things are incredibly frustrating, but there's only so 
much I can do about them. I find that in many of those cases, the actual 
issue is "A". They simply can't be bothered to care. If that's the case 
here, it doesn't matter if ARIN lets legacy resource holders have RPKI 
for free without an RSA.


If the issue is "B", then quite frankly, they are trying to extort "us" 
(non-legacy ARIN members). They want non-legacy members to continue to 
subsidize the costs of operating ARIN. That's just wrong; we should all 
pay our fair share. While I may find myself forced to accept that some 
will get away with not paying their fair share, I certainly don't have 
to agree with / condone / support that bad behavior.


It seems to me that if the concern is "C", we have to be close to the 
point where that largely stops mattering, for at least a couple of reasons:

First off is the economic argument. If I'm a legacy resource holder 
sitting on excess IPv4 space, it seems to me that the right play is to 
sell now or soon. At some point (hopefully soon), we're (hopefully) 
going to reach peak IPv4 value. Once a legacy resource holder sells, the 
new owner is going to be subject to an RSA, which moots concern C anyway.

Second is the RPKI deployment argument. All it would take is one large 
network to say, "RPKI or we're not going to route it" (or the U.S. FCC 
to mandate that) and then that'd be it. Legacy resource holders would 
have to work things out with ARIN. And, at that point, the legacy 
resource holders would have significantly decreased leverage, so it 
seems unlikely that ARIN would suddenly loosen their stance.

All that said...

On 2024-02-14 15:31, John Curran wrote:
 > There are some organizations that that believe that they may have
 > rights that exceed those expressed in the RSA ? while I find that
 > rather fanciful

Would it be possible for ARIN to modify the LRSA in some way to placate 
this concern? Effectively saying that ARIN takes no position on those 
claims? What would be the practical difference; if they stop paying 
their ARIN bill, the difference would be reclaiming those resources vs. 
just stopping providing any services?

-- 
Richard


From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Feb 14 17:14:25 2024
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 22:14:25 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder on ARIN Consultation on RPKI/BGP
In-Reply-To: <a9f10495-df18-4001-adc5-8e48b3eb0448@wiktel.com>
References: <07BAF9A3-0991-4C33-8A94-6A741BC8F57B@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVOuXAWWmD-LKb+N2Nh=d2SyjOGr9O4vtJz9D55VHtHfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8732B27F-E429-421E-9C29-5115212836DB@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXi2C=T22UmLH9dWNEXhmBnDf-W3NLAgwdvf1cOsK-J-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <AE87C13A-6E3F-458F-8047-39AABC749DB1@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGWHk+wMDaZYKNbgwUmLUO=aq49oDyawKE2GsrJEabS01A@mail.gmail.com>
 <D69CACEE-C451-49F6-95D9-C54AE6B01BB7@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGW62WH3Pc8Ah14LWApJwOXso0FRVjDpLWXH8suxGz8OQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <39A8652B-175A-4507-9AD2-C777075C8FDD@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXgwziBk0A0Rm6sGW-xmAuZ22071Pib+iqky0AhTgn2bg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3b385b03-63c0-4137-b658-305480279d5b@wiktel.com>
 <CAP-guGUZ8r8qWUHcDFBjU3wqwHxvKHi031XcK-XPPx=BQ62tOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <a9f10495-df18-4001-adc5-8e48b3eb0448@wiktel.com>
Message-ID: <20ECE53A-1A46-4575-85E2-82B2C946D53D@arin.net>


On Feb 14, 2024, at 4:45?PM, Richard Laager <rlaager at wiktel.com> wrote:

Would it be possible for ARIN to modify the LRSA in some way to placate this concern?

Richard -

Indeed, we?ve tried - there have been several revisions of the RSA in recent years to address
various concerns that have been raised.

Effectively saying that ARIN takes no position on those claims? ?

In 2022 we did exactly that by modifying RSA section 7 clause to no longer require disclaiming significant rights
(e.g. property rights) and instead simply stating that this RSA provides specific rights to the resource holder ?
<https://www.arin.net/announcements/20220912/>

(This made big difference to many legacy resource holders, but clearly not everyone?)

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20240214/659c57fd/attachment.htm>

From bill at herrin.us  Wed Feb 14 17:23:06 2024
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 14:23:06 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder on ARIN Consultation on RPKI/BGP
In-Reply-To: <a9f10495-df18-4001-adc5-8e48b3eb0448@wiktel.com>
References: <07BAF9A3-0991-4C33-8A94-6A741BC8F57B@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVOuXAWWmD-LKb+N2Nh=d2SyjOGr9O4vtJz9D55VHtHfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8732B27F-E429-421E-9C29-5115212836DB@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXi2C=T22UmLH9dWNEXhmBnDf-W3NLAgwdvf1cOsK-J-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <AE87C13A-6E3F-458F-8047-39AABC749DB1@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGWHk+wMDaZYKNbgwUmLUO=aq49oDyawKE2GsrJEabS01A@mail.gmail.com>
 <D69CACEE-C451-49F6-95D9-C54AE6B01BB7@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGW62WH3Pc8Ah14LWApJwOXso0FRVjDpLWXH8suxGz8OQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <39A8652B-175A-4507-9AD2-C777075C8FDD@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXgwziBk0A0Rm6sGW-xmAuZ22071Pib+iqky0AhTgn2bg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3b385b03-63c0-4137-b658-305480279d5b@wiktel.com>
 <CAP-guGUZ8r8qWUHcDFBjU3wqwHxvKHi031XcK-XPPx=BQ62tOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <a9f10495-df18-4001-adc5-8e48b3eb0448@wiktel.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGWdQTGfspE62qWk4M4LGpuG1YOetL1hGG2GEPr-USc1Pw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 1:45?PM Richard Laager <rlaager at wiktel.com> wrote:
> In this subthread, we are talking about whether a legacy resource holder
> can issue ROAs for their legacy space, not whether others honor my ROAs.
> So the risk this helps mitigate is the legacy resource holder's space
> being hijacked.

Hi Richard,

Every packet has two customers. At least one of them pays you. It is
to service -that- customer that anyone implements RPKI validation on
their router. And -that- customer benefits every time RPKI gains an
additional participant.


> Second is the RPKI deployment argument. All it would take is one large
> network to say, "RPKI or we're not going to route it" (or the U.S. FCC
> to mandate that) and then that'd be it. Legacy resource holders would
> have to work things out with ARIN. And, at that point, the legacy
> resource holders would have significantly decreased leverage, so it
> seems unlikely that ARIN would suddenly loosen their stance.

A few months back, one network (I forget which) declared that they
would not accept -customer- routes unless they matched an IRR entry
from one of the RIRs (i.e. not RADB). No change to routes received
from peers and transits. So far, that is the outside limit that anyone
has been willing to push for refusing to route legacy addresses. It'll
be interesting to see if that sticks or if they give up on it like
ISPs gave up on trying to enforce /20 minimum route sizes for
post-legacy RIR assignments. My guess is they walk it back the first
time there's significant money on the table.


> On 2024-02-14 15:31, John Curran wrote:
>  > There are some organizations that that believe that they may have
>  > rights that exceed those expressed in the RSA ? while I find that
>  > rather fanciful
>
> Would it be possible for ARIN to modify the LRSA in some way to placate
> this concern? Effectively saying that ARIN takes no position on those
> claims? What would be the practical difference; if they stop paying
> their ARIN bill, the difference would be reclaiming those resources vs.
> just stopping providing any services?

The way to do it while remaining relatively consistent with ARIN's
current business practices would be to have a second legal agreement:
an RPKI services agreement. The RPKI services agreement would apply
only to RPKI services. It would require the registrant to
-demonstrate- registration but would not include any registration
services or make any claims or warranties about such services. As far
as registration services go, it would simply continue to be an
uncontracted legacy network.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
bill at herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/


From bill at herrin.us  Wed Feb 14 17:30:00 2024
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 14:30:00 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder on ARIN Consultation on RPKI/BGP
In-Reply-To: <20ECE53A-1A46-4575-85E2-82B2C946D53D@arin.net>
References: <07BAF9A3-0991-4C33-8A94-6A741BC8F57B@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVOuXAWWmD-LKb+N2Nh=d2SyjOGr9O4vtJz9D55VHtHfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8732B27F-E429-421E-9C29-5115212836DB@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXi2C=T22UmLH9dWNEXhmBnDf-W3NLAgwdvf1cOsK-J-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <AE87C13A-6E3F-458F-8047-39AABC749DB1@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGWHk+wMDaZYKNbgwUmLUO=aq49oDyawKE2GsrJEabS01A@mail.gmail.com>
 <D69CACEE-C451-49F6-95D9-C54AE6B01BB7@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGW62WH3Pc8Ah14LWApJwOXso0FRVjDpLWXH8suxGz8OQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <39A8652B-175A-4507-9AD2-C777075C8FDD@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXgwziBk0A0Rm6sGW-xmAuZ22071Pib+iqky0AhTgn2bg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3b385b03-63c0-4137-b658-305480279d5b@wiktel.com>
 <CAP-guGUZ8r8qWUHcDFBjU3wqwHxvKHi031XcK-XPPx=BQ62tOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <a9f10495-df18-4001-adc5-8e48b3eb0448@wiktel.com>
 <20ECE53A-1A46-4575-85E2-82B2C946D53D@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGXrFOxnpZNs5Mx8X+xKpUA+tO_eCw0UbGBQGGQEg+pWPg@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 2:14?PM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> In 2022 we did exactly that by modifying RSA section 7 clause to no longer require disclaiming significant rights
> (e.g. property rights) and instead simply stating that this RSA provides specific rights to the resource holder ?
> <https://www.arin.net/announcements/20220912/>

Yeah, but you "forgot" to modify section 13(d) which still says:

"Holder shall have the right to terminate this Agreement at any time
if it returns to ARIN, without limitation, all rights to Included
Number Resources."

And 13(e) which still says:

"if this agreement is terminated, then (i) ARIN will immediately
revoke the Included Number Resources and otherwise cease providing the
Services and will have no liability for doing so."

But hey, congratulations on removing one of at least three disclaimers
to property rights that you asked registrants to agree to.


> (This made big difference to many legacy resource holders, but clearly not everyone?)

I can't imagine why. </sarcasm>

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
bill at herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/


From dwcarder at es.net  Wed Feb 14 17:41:59 2024
From: dwcarder at es.net (Dale W. Carder)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 16:41:59 -0600
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder on ARIN Consultation on RPKI/BGP
In-Reply-To: <07BAF9A3-0991-4C33-8A94-6A741BC8F57B@arin.net>
References: <07BAF9A3-0991-4C33-8A94-6A741BC8F57B@arin.net>
Message-ID: <Zc1Bt9pk1TiFrF-9@dwc-studio.local>

Thus spake ARIN (info at arin.net) on Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 12:57:46PM -0500:
> ARIN would like to remind the community about the ongoing consultation on Resource Public Key Infrastructure/BGP intelligence. This consultation is slated to close on Thursday, 29 February. Please be sure to submit your comments to the arin-consult mailing list before then.
> 
> Read the full text of the consultation at: https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2024/2024-1/
> 
> As of 14 February, we have received very few comments from the community regarding this consultation. We believe adding this feature would benefit many ARIN customers, and we are seeking input from our community for any additional information or capabilities that should be included in this proposed functionality development. 
> 
> If you have feedback you?d like to share with ARIN, please provide it to the arin-consult mailing list via arin-consult at arin.net. You may subscribe to this mailing list at https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult. ARIN will use the feedback provided to determine how we move forward with improvements to our routing security services.

Thanks for the reminder.  In short, the approach proposed is a
significant benefit to the ARIN membership as it in effect lowers the
bar to entry for new participants.  There is a non-zero risk when one
adds a ROA that it could be service affecting.  We have had sites that
connect to us miss creating a record for a more-specific for example.
Luckily we caught it through other monitoring after the fact, but it 
could have been preventable up front with better tooling.

One area where we initially struggled was being able to easily report 
which of our allocations were not covered by an ROA.  Most of the
3rd party reporting does its work based on DMZ visibility, but as not
all of our prefixes used on the Internet are seen in the DFZ we were
missing this vantage.  In the table view provided by ARIN, this corner
case could be accounted for.

Dale


From dwcarder at es.net  Wed Feb 14 18:09:03 2024
From: dwcarder at es.net (Dale W. Carder)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 17:09:03 -0600
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder on ARIN Consultation on RPKI/BGP
In-Reply-To: <3b385b03-63c0-4137-b658-305480279d5b@wiktel.com>
References: <CAP-guGVOuXAWWmD-LKb+N2Nh=d2SyjOGr9O4vtJz9D55VHtHfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8732B27F-E429-421E-9C29-5115212836DB@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXi2C=T22UmLH9dWNEXhmBnDf-W3NLAgwdvf1cOsK-J-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <AE87C13A-6E3F-458F-8047-39AABC749DB1@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGWHk+wMDaZYKNbgwUmLUO=aq49oDyawKE2GsrJEabS01A@mail.gmail.com>
 <D69CACEE-C451-49F6-95D9-C54AE6B01BB7@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGW62WH3Pc8Ah14LWApJwOXso0FRVjDpLWXH8suxGz8OQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <39A8652B-175A-4507-9AD2-C777075C8FDD@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXgwziBk0A0Rm6sGW-xmAuZ22071Pib+iqky0AhTgn2bg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3b385b03-63c0-4137-b658-305480279d5b@wiktel.com>
Message-ID: <Zc1IDy6374Yt9vd3@dwc-studio.local>

Thus spake Richard Laager (rlaager at wiktel.com) on Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 02:42:19PM -0600:
> On 2024-02-14 14:32, William Herrin wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 12:26?PM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> > > We have no control over those who choose not to utilize IRR or RPKI services ?
> > > while we have many many changes to make it easier to enter into the RSA
> > > (and also many changes to utilize ARIN?s RPKI services), in the end it is still
> > > each customer's choice regarding what services make sense for them.
> > 
> > Hi John,
> > 
> > The Registration Services Agreement currently doesn't make sense,
> > according to your numbers, to the registrants of 31% of the
> > registrations you hold. Maybe you're doing it wrong.
> 
> Which is the (major) issue:
> 
> A) Legacy registrants can't be bothered to do anything.

Many legacy registrants are governmental entities, and it is (from
first-hand experience) non-trivial to clean up record keeping dating 
from the 1980's, then escort the RSA's terms and conditions through 
the sausage grinder of lawyers so it could even be legally signed.  
Then we did it all again for the RPKI Relying Party Agreement.  So, 
one does have to be sufficiently motivated.

> B) Legacy registrants don't want to pay the same fees.

Possibly also true, but fees were waved for some time.

> C) Legacy registrants don't want to give up the idea that they might "own"
> the resources.

This has gotten better over time.  Not perfect, but better.  Anyone with
an IPv6 allocation clearly figured it out.

Dale


From jbartig at internet2.edu  Thu Feb 15 12:10:41 2024
From: jbartig at internet2.edu (Jeff Bartig)
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:10:41 -0600
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder on ARIN Consultation on RPKI/BGP
In-Reply-To: <07BAF9A3-0991-4C33-8A94-6A741BC8F57B@arin.net>
References: <07BAF9A3-0991-4C33-8A94-6A741BC8F57B@arin.net>
Message-ID: <83A9A5D8-5C75-40FD-B62F-1052E57F1309@internet2.edu>


Hello John,

Thank you for the reminder to respond.  I believe this would be a 
valuable addition to the ARIN RPKI dashboard.

The Consultation Description points out an important issue of letting 
?users make more informed decisions about creating ROAs before 
confirming the changes and without leaving ARIN Online.?  I don?t 
see the ?before confirming changes? specifically addressed in the 
Proposed Changes section.

If a user is creating a ROA and there are visible BGP routes that will 
change validity status due to this new ROA, it would be nice to have 
that information provided to the user before the final confirmation for 
creating the ROA.  This would help catch mistakes before they happen.

Jeff


-- 
Jeff Bartig
Interconnection Architect
Internet2  AS11164 / AS11537
+1-608-616-9908
jbartig at internet2.edu

On 14 Feb 2024, at 11:57, ARIN wrote:

> ARIN would like to remind the community about the ongoing consultation 
> on Resource Public Key Infrastructure/BGP intelligence. This 
> consultation is slated to close on Thursday, 29 February. Please be 
> sure to submit your comments to the arin-consult mailing list before 
> then.
>
> Read the full text of the consultation at: 
> https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2024/2024-1/
>
> As of 14 February, we have received very few comments from the 
> community regarding this consultation. We believe adding this feature 
> would benefit many ARIN customers, and we are seeking input from our 
> community for any additional information or capabilities that should 
> be included in this proposed functionality development.
>
> If you have feedback you?d like to share with ARIN, please provide 
> it to the arin-consult mailing list via arin-consult at arin.net. You may 
> subscribe to this mailing list at 
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult. ARIN will use 
> the feedback provided to determine how we move forward with 
> improvements to our routing security services.
>
> Thank you for your participation in this community consultation.
>
> 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:
> https://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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20240215/256f3d61/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at arin.net  Tue Feb 20 19:55:56 2024
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 00:55:56 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder on ARIN Consultation on RPKI/BGP
In-Reply-To: <5567.1708471037@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
References: <07BAF9A3-0991-4C33-8A94-6A741BC8F57B@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVOuXAWWmD-LKb+N2Nh=d2SyjOGr9O4vtJz9D55VHtHfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8732B27F-E429-421E-9C29-5115212836DB@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXi2C=T22UmLH9dWNEXhmBnDf-W3NLAgwdvf1cOsK-J-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <AE87C13A-6E3F-458F-8047-39AABC749DB1@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGWHk+wMDaZYKNbgwUmLUO=aq49oDyawKE2GsrJEabS01A@mail.gmail.com>
 <D69CACEE-C451-49F6-95D9-C54AE6B01BB7@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGW62WH3Pc8Ah14LWApJwOXso0FRVjDpLWXH8suxGz8OQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP-guGXbk3-WD-H_+WYLcnXi+90m5c=BuMgG2SQMoLWDCbUSnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5567.1708471037@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID: <0C23450C-4EC1-44F1-918F-CC26142C3AC1@arin.net>


On Feb 20, 2024, at 6:17?PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf at sandelman.ca> wrote:
...
I understand that legacy holders do not get access to the ARIN trust anchors,
and so can't verify.  That's one direction of trust, and I think it's unfortunate.
I think that if they started to see benefit from RPKI, they might wonder why
they aren't involved, and consider joining.

Michael  ?

Alas, the challenge is that there are legacy resource holders who have made a conscious decision
over the years that they are better off not entering into a registration services agreement with ARIN ?
the same agreement that every other resource holder has & with the same terms and conditions ?
and thus they decline to receive the full set of services as every other registry customer.   While it is
possible that the benefits of RPKI will impact their consideration of the matter, it?s not at all assured.

As for the reason why, we?ve heard it asserted by some legacy resource holders that they hold
unspecified and/or unproven rights to their number resource entries in the ARIN registry, and
furthermore that entry into an ARIN registration services agreement would impact those rights.
While ARIN has changed the registration agreement several times to reduce the probability of
any conflict, it is a realistic concern given the otherwise indeterminate nature of the assertions.

ARIN was formed to take on full responsibility for the Internet number registry that was previously
administered under USG direction, and to provide a clear voice to this community on how these
number resources are managed.  We have provided this community with the ability to elect its own
governing body for ARIN (the ARIN Board of Trustees) and that body has consistently held for over
25 years that that ARIN should provide legacy holders with the same basic registry services that they
were receiving at ARIN?s formation without cost or contract.  However, we have also heard consistent
community demand for equitable treatment of _all_ ARIN customers in terms of agreements and fees;
this should not be surprising given that the ARIN registry exists in service to the entire community.

The present situation is the result of balancing those two principled positions:  ARIN legacy resource
holders continue to receive basic registry services (and many member-funded enhancements such as
online registry management, DNSSEC support for reverse DNS zones, etc.) without contract or fee.
They also enjoy full participation in the policy development process, the ARIN consultation process, etc.

However, if they want to receive all of services that have been funded by the ARIN members ? such as
authenticated IRR and RPKI ? then they have to agree to the same registry terms as everyone else.
Doing so is quite simple, but does require being comfortable with being treated the same as every other
ARIN member ? a problematic requirement for some given that they hold inherently inequitable beliefs
regarding their number resources in the ARIN registry.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20240221/68b7fc82/attachment.htm>

From owen at delong.com  Wed Feb 21 01:56:37 2024
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 22:56:37 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder on ARIN Consultation on RPKI/BGP
In-Reply-To: <0C23450C-4EC1-44F1-918F-CC26142C3AC1@arin.net>
References: <07BAF9A3-0991-4C33-8A94-6A741BC8F57B@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVOuXAWWmD-LKb+N2Nh=d2SyjOGr9O4vtJz9D55VHtHfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8732B27F-E429-421E-9C29-5115212836DB@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXi2C=T22UmLH9dWNEXhmBnDf-W3NLAgwdvf1cOsK-J-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <AE87C13A-6E3F-458F-8047-39AABC749DB1@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGWHk+wMDaZYKNbgwUmLUO=aq49oDyawKE2GsrJEabS01A@mail.gmail.com>
 <D69CACEE-C451-49F6-95D9-C54AE6B01BB7@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGW62WH3Pc8Ah14LWApJwOXso0FRVjDpLWXH8suxGz8OQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP-guGXbk3-WD-H_+WYLcnXi+90m5c=BuMgG2SQMoLWDCbUSnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5567.1708471037@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
 <0C23450C-4EC1-44F1-918F-CC26142C3AC1@arin.net>
Message-ID: <AD608E7E-A272-4738-ADFE-7CBBD8FE3EB5@delong.com>



> On Feb 20, 2024, at 16:55, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Feb 20, 2024, at 6:17?PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf at sandelman.ca> wrote:
>> ...
>> I understand that legacy holders do not get access to the ARIN trust anchors,
>> and so can't verify.  That's one direction of trust, and I think it's unfortunate.
>> I think that if they started to see benefit from RPKI, they might wonder why
>> they aren't involved, and consider joining.
> 
> Michael  ? 
> 
> Alas, the challenge is that there are legacy resource holders who have made a conscious decision 
> over the years that they are better off not entering into a registration services agreement with ARIN ? 
> the same agreement that every other resource holder has & with the same terms and conditions ? 
> and thus they decline to receive the full set of services as every other registry customer.   While it is
> possible that the benefits of RPKI will impact their consideration of the matter, it?s not at all assured.

In its current state, RPKI is at best a cryptographically signed hint at how to best spoof an advertisement.

At worst, it is fast becoming a cudgel that can be used to drive certain behaviors.

For now (and this is largely a good thing) there aren?t many providers rejecting RPKI UNKNOWN announcements.
However, there are some that are rejecting RPKI unknown for IRR (not RIR) records more recent than a certain date.

There are many legitimate reasons that a legacy registration that is decades old might end up with a more recent
date on their IRR entry (changing from RADB to ALTDB or vice versa as an example).

This can result in significant connectivity problems for legitimate legacy holders, to which the general response
from these (large) providers is to attempt to bully the legacy holder into joining an RIR.

> As for the reason why, we?ve heard it asserted by some legacy resource holders that they hold 
> unspecified and/or unproven rights to their number resource entries in the ARIN registry, and 
> furthermore that entry into an ARIN registration services agreement would impact those rights.  
> While ARIN has changed the registration agreement several times to reduce the probability of 
> any conflict, it is a realistic concern given the otherwise indeterminate nature of the assertions. 

In my case, I entered into the ARIN Legacy RSA based on a set of conditions that were not expected to change. The
ARIN board chose to change those conditions over my objections, but would not give me the option of retaining my
resources and going back to an uncontracted state. Fortunately, I found a loophole by transferring my resources to
the RIPE NCC as uncontracted legacy resources, so my only relationship with ARIN regards my IPv6 /48.

> ARIN was formed to take on full responsibility for the Internet number registry that was previously 
> administered under USG direction, and to provide a clear voice to this community on how these 
> number resources are managed.  We have provided this community with the ability to elect its own 
> governing body for ARIN (the ARIN Board of Trustees) and that body has consistently held for over 
> 25 years that that ARIN should provide legacy holders with the same basic registry services that they 
> were receiving at ARIN?s formation without cost or contract.  However, we have also heard consistent  
> community demand for equitable treatment of _all_ ARIN customers in terms of agreements and fees; 
> this should not be surprising given that the ARIN registry exists in service to the entire community. 

No, you have provided the membership, not the community, with the ability to elect the BOT and the AC.

Please note that the membership consists solely of those who have both opted in to some form of RSA and expressed a desire to participate in ARIN governance.

Further, the holding of the BoT that ARIN should provide those services to legacy holders without contract or cost is widely understood to be a promise ARIN made to the resource holding community at or near the time that it was awarded with that responsibility.


> The present situation is the result of balancing those two principled positions:  ARIN legacy resource
> holders continue to receive basic registry services (and many member-funded enhancements such as 
> online registry management, DNSSEC support for reverse DNS zones, etc.) without contract or fee. 
> They also enjoy full participation in the policy development process, the ARIN consultation process, etc. 

The present situation is the current place in the evolution of how ARIN has balanced those two positions.

Full participation in the PDP is open to anyone with an email address, not just the resource holders. (well, except the part where the AC is elected, that?s members only).

> However, if they want to receive all of services that have been funded by the ARIN members ? such as 
> authenticated IRR and RPKI ? then they have to agree to the same registry terms as everyone else. 
> Doing so is quite simple, but does require being comfortable with being treated the same as every other 
> ARIN member ? a problematic requirement for some given that they hold inherently inequitable beliefs
> regarding their number resources in the ARIN registry. 

IMHO, this is a derogatory and unfair characterization of the legacy holders who have, for various reasons, chosen not to adopt the ARIN RSA.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20240220/6fdf7bf6/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Feb 21 09:42:15 2024
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 14:42:15 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder on ARIN Consultation on RPKI/BGP
In-Reply-To: <AD608E7E-A272-4738-ADFE-7CBBD8FE3EB5@delong.com>
References: <07BAF9A3-0991-4C33-8A94-6A741BC8F57B@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVOuXAWWmD-LKb+N2Nh=d2SyjOGr9O4vtJz9D55VHtHfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8732B27F-E429-421E-9C29-5115212836DB@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXi2C=T22UmLH9dWNEXhmBnDf-W3NLAgwdvf1cOsK-J-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <AE87C13A-6E3F-458F-8047-39AABC749DB1@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGWHk+wMDaZYKNbgwUmLUO=aq49oDyawKE2GsrJEabS01A@mail.gmail.com>
 <D69CACEE-C451-49F6-95D9-C54AE6B01BB7@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGW62WH3Pc8Ah14LWApJwOXso0FRVjDpLWXH8suxGz8OQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP-guGXbk3-WD-H_+WYLcnXi+90m5c=BuMgG2SQMoLWDCbUSnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5567.1708471037@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
 <0C23450C-4EC1-44F1-918F-CC26142C3AC1@arin.net>
 <AD608E7E-A272-4738-ADFE-7CBBD8FE3EB5@delong.com>
Message-ID: <9DE9EB6E-2FEC-4DC1-82CD-E0117D286E5B@arin.net>

On Feb 21, 2024, at 1:56?AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
On Feb 20, 2024, at 16:55, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

Alas, the challenge is that there are legacy resource holders who have made a conscious decision
over the years that they are better off not entering into a registration services agreement with ARIN ?
the same agreement that every other resource holder has & with the same terms and conditions ?
and thus they decline to receive the full set of services as every other registry customer.   While it is
possible that the benefits of RPKI will impact their consideration of the matter, it?s not at all assured.

In its current state, RPKI is at best a cryptographically signed hint at how to best spoof an advertisement.

That is case only for those who do not perform RPKI ROV ? as it is those who fail to perform ROV (or rely
on others that fail to perform ROV) that run the risk of routing impact by such spoofing? i.e., a self-inflicted
injury to some extent.

As for the reason why, we?ve heard it asserted by some legacy resource holders that they hold
unspecified and/or unproven rights to their number resource entries in the ARIN registry, and
furthermore that entry into an ARIN registration services agreement would impact those rights.
While ARIN has changed the registration agreement several times to reduce the probability of
any conflict, it is a realistic concern given the otherwise indeterminate nature of the assertions.

In my case, I entered into the ARIN Legacy RSA based on a set of conditions that were not expected to change. The
ARIN board chose to change those conditions over my objections, but would not give me the option of retaining my
resources and going back to an uncontracted state. Fortunately, I found a loophole by transferring my resources to
the RIPE NCC as uncontracted legacy resources, so my only relationship with ARIN regards my IPv6 /48.

That is not a ?loophole? but rather a feature of the confederated nature of Internet numbers registry system ?
each RIR community, through its own governance mechanisms, determines its own policies and services.

ARIN was formed to take on full responsibility for the Internet number registry that was previously
administered under USG direction, and to provide a clear voice to this community on how these
number resources are managed.  We have provided this community with the ability to elect its own
governing body for ARIN (the ARIN Board of Trustees) and that body has consistently held for over
25 years that that ARIN should provide legacy holders with the same basic registry services that they
were receiving at ARIN?s formation without cost or contract.  However, we have also heard consistent
community demand for equitable treatment of _all_ ARIN customers in terms of agreements and fees;
this should not be surprising given that the ARIN registry exists in service to the entire community.

No, you have provided the membership, not the community, with the ability to elect the BOT and the AC.

Note that when ARIN was first formed even that ability for the community to elect a Board wasn?t present ?
we had to define the membership and provide it with the right to elect the Board and the AC.   Over time
we have continued to vest more authority in the ARIN membership, and this has included the member right
to remove trustees, to be consulted on governance bylaw changes, etc.

We have even gone as far as to place control over changes to the registration service agreement itself with
the members (as the latest RSA provides that ARIN may only modify its terms for a compelling need to due
to a discrete, identifiable change in relevant statute or caselaw, or upon recommendation of the Board with
a ratification by ARIN member vote.)

Please note that the membership consists solely of those who have both opted in to some form of RSA and expressed a desire to participate in ARIN governance.

To be clear, the membership now consists of all organizations receiving ARIN services for their Internet
number resources under contract (this includes IPv4, IPv6, and ASN holders), as these are all Service
Members.  Those that wish to participate in ARIN governance may opt to become ARIN General Members
(by agreeing to vote in elections, be published in the membership directory, contacted with governance
information, etc. )

The goal is a stable self-governing organization that allows those in the community that wish to participate
in governance to have a voice in the way that number resources are managed in the registry, and those
simply want to receive registry services to do so without the overhead of governance involvement.   One
doesn?t have to participate in ARIN governance, but you are still governed by the whatever those that do
participate end up deciding.

Further, the holding of the BoT that ARIN should provide those services to legacy holders without contract or cost is widely understood to be a promise ARIN made to the resource holding community at or near the time that it was awarded with that responsibility.

ARIN has continued provide such service to date, as it has been viewed as appropriate course by the
member-elected Board of Trustees.  Ultimately, however, ARIN is a membership organization, and it will
take whatever course of action is set by the ARIN membership who choose to participate in its governance.

...
However, if they want to receive all of services that have been funded by the ARIN members ? such as
authenticated IRR and RPKI ? then they have to agree to the same registry terms as everyone else.
Doing so is quite simple, but does require being comfortable with being treated the same as every other
ARIN member ? a problematic requirement for some given that they hold inherently inequitable beliefs
regarding their number resources in the ARIN registry.

IMHO, this is a derogatory and unfair characterization of the legacy holders who have, for various reasons, chosen not to adopt the ARIN RSA.

Apologies, it was not my goal to cast aspersions on those who have chosen not to enter into a registration
services agreement, but rather to simply convey (in a clear and accurate manner) the inherent conflict between
their expectations and ARIN?s goals of a member-governed organization that provides equitable treatment of
all members.

I note that this thread, while perhaps informative on several related topics, has wandered a bit astray from the
original question of the community consultation ? i.e., the proposal that we change the ARIN Online interface
for the Hosted RPKI service to provide additional information on current routing state to the user (as further
described here ? https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2024/2024-1/)

To the extent that there is further feedback or suggestions regarding this proposed service change, please
provide it here on the list as soon as possible (as this consultation will close in just over one week?s time.)

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20240221/ec19d87d/attachment.htm>

From owen at delong.com  Wed Feb 21 10:16:24 2024
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 07:16:24 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder on ARIN Consultation on RPKI/BGP
In-Reply-To: <9DE9EB6E-2FEC-4DC1-82CD-E0117D286E5B@arin.net>
References: <9DE9EB6E-2FEC-4DC1-82CD-E0117D286E5B@arin.net>
Message-ID: <C89753D8-CB55-4A0A-AE1C-EED74E727FD7@delong.com>



> On Feb 21, 2024, at 06:42, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
> ?
>>> On Feb 21, 2024, at 1:56?AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> On Feb 20, 2024, at 16:55, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Alas, the challenge is that there are legacy resource holders who have made a conscious decision 
>>> over the years that they are better off not entering into a registration services agreement with ARIN ? 
>>> the same agreement that every other resource holder has & with the same terms and conditions ? 
>>> and thus they decline to receive the full set of services as every other registry customer.   While it is
>>> possible that the benefits of RPKI will impact their consideration of the matter, it?s not at all assured.
>> 
>> In its current state, RPKI is at best a cryptographically signed hint at how to best spoof an advertisement.
> 
> That is case only for those who do not perform RPKI ROV ? as it is those who fail to perform ROV (or rely
> on others that fail to perform ROV) that run the risk of routing impact by such spoofing? i.e., a self-inflicted
> injury to some extent. 

Simply untrue. All ROV does is ensure that the first AS in the AS path marches the ROA. Anyone who can find an upstream that doesn?t validate the advertised AS-path and isn?t carefully filtering what they accept from their downstream (not as hard as you might wish) can prepend the AS advertised in the ROA and achieve valid spoofed routes. 

> 
>>> As for the reason why, we?ve heard it asserted by some legacy resource holders that they hold 
>>> unspecified and/or unproven rights to their number resource entries in the ARIN registry, and 
>>> furthermore that entry into an ARIN registration services agreement would impact those rights.  
>>> While ARIN has changed the registration agreement several times to reduce the probability of 
>>> any conflict, it is a realistic concern given the otherwise indeterminate nature of the assertions. 
>> 
>> In my case, I entered into the ARIN Legacy RSA based on a set of conditions that were not expected to change. The
>> ARIN board chose to change those conditions over my objections, but would not give me the option of retaining my
>> resources and going back to an uncontracted state. Fortunately, I found a loophole by transferring my resources to
>> the RIPE NCC as uncontracted legacy resources, so my only relationship with ARIN regards my IPv6 /48.
> 
> That is not a ?loophole? but rather a feature of the confederated nature of Internet numbers registry system ? 
> each RIR community, through its own governance mechanisms, determines its own policies and services.   
> 
>>> ARIN was formed to take on full responsibility for the Internet number registry that was previously 
>>> administered under USG direction, and to provide a clear voice to this community on how these 
>>> number resources are managed.  We have provided this community with the ability to elect its own 
>>> governing body for ARIN (the ARIN Board of Trustees) and that body has consistently held for over 
>>> 25 years that that ARIN should provide legacy holders with the same basic registry services that they 
>>> were receiving at ARIN?s formation without cost or contract.  However, we have also heard consistent  
>>> community demand for equitable treatment of _all_ ARIN customers in terms of agreements and fees; 
>>> this should not be surprising given that the ARIN registry exists in service to the entire community. 
>> 
>> No, you have provided the membership, not the community, with the ability to elect the BOT and the AC.
> 
> Note that when ARIN was first formed even that ability for the community to elect a Board wasn?t present ? 
> we had to define the membership and provide it with the right to elect the Board and the AC.   Over time 
> we have continued to vest more authority in the ARIN membership, and this has included the member right 
> to remove trustees, to be consulted on governance bylaw changes, etc. 
> 
> We have even gone as far as to place control over changes to the registration service agreement itself with 
> the members (as the latest RSA provides that ARIN may only modify its terms for a compelling need to due 
> to a discrete, identifiable change in relevant statute or caselaw, or upon recommendation of the Board with 
> a ratification by ARIN member vote.) 
> 
>> Please note that the membership consists solely of those who have both opted in to some form of RSA and expressed a desire to participate in ARIN governance.
> 
> To be clear, the membership now consists of all organizations receiving ARIN services for their Internet 
> number resources under contract (this includes IPv4, IPv6, and ASN holders), as these are all Service 
> Members.  Those that wish to participate in ARIN governance may opt to become ARIN General Members 
> (by agreeing to vote in elections, be published in the membership directory, contacted with governance 
> information, etc. )
> 
> The goal is a stable self-governing organization that allows those in the community that wish to participate
> in governance to have a voice in the way that number resources are managed in the registry, and those 
> simply want to receive registry services to do so without the overhead of governance involvement.   One
> doesn?t have to participate in ARIN governance, but you are still governed by the whatever those that do 
> participate end up deciding. 
> 
>> Further, the holding of the BoT that ARIN should provide those services to legacy holders without contract or cost is widely understood to be a promise ARIN made to the resource holding community at or near the time that it was awarded with that responsibility.
> 
> ARIN has continued provide such service to date, as it has been viewed as appropriate course by the 
> member-elected Board of Trustees.  Ultimately, however, ARIN is a membership organization, and it will 
> take whatever course of action is set by the ARIN membership who choose to participate in its governance. 
> 
>> ...
>>> However, if they want to receive all of services that have been funded by the ARIN members ? such as 
>>> authenticated IRR and RPKI ? then they have to agree to the same registry terms as everyone else. 
>>> Doing so is quite simple, but does require being comfortable with being treated the same as every other 
>>> ARIN member ? a problematic requirement for some given that they hold inherently inequitable beliefs
>>> regarding their number resources in the ARIN registry. 
>> 
>> IMHO, this is a derogatory and unfair characterization of the legacy holders who have, for various reasons, chosen not to adopt the ARIN RSA.
> 
> Apologies, it was not my goal to cast aspersions on those who have chosen not to enter into a registration 
> services agreement, but rather to simply convey (in a clear and accurate manner) the inherent conflict between
> their expectations and ARIN?s goals of a member-governed organization that provides equitable treatment of
> all members. 

Well, since legacy holders without contract aren?t members, I guess you?ve done that if you consider the current treatment of members equitable. I?m not saying it is or is not here, but pointing out that since legacy holders without contract aren?t members, they aren?t part of your defined equitable treatment goal as you have stated it here. 

> I note that this thread, while perhaps informative on several related topics, has wandered a bit astray from the 
> original question of the community consultation ? i.e., the proposal that we change the ARIN Online interface 
> for the Hosted RPKI service to provide additional information on current routing state to the user (as further 
> described here ? https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2024/2024-1/)   
> 
> To the extent that there is further feedback or suggestions regarding this proposed service change, please 
> provide it here on the list as soon as possible (as this consultation will close in just over one week?s time.) 

I don?t have a dog in that particular fight as I see hosted RPKI as a further degradation of the (minimal) security potentially provided by RPKI. 

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20240221/b5bdc5c9/attachment.htm>

From has at google.com  Wed Feb 21 10:30:30 2024
From: has at google.com (Heather Schiller)
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 10:30:30 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder on ARIN Consultation on RPKI/BGP
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGXi2C=T22UmLH9dWNEXhmBnDf-W3NLAgwdvf1cOsK-J-w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <07BAF9A3-0991-4C33-8A94-6A741BC8F57B@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVOuXAWWmD-LKb+N2Nh=d2SyjOGr9O4vtJz9D55VHtHfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8732B27F-E429-421E-9C29-5115212836DB@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXi2C=T22UmLH9dWNEXhmBnDf-W3NLAgwdvf1cOsK-J-w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEabp55Ef2eqAXWp6hNou5ysb2dwaesx9gyW2gnERc5U157fBQ@mail.gmail.com>

You want an organization to provide a thing and to have no terms of service
for it?
Really?
A thing that you will then depend on for being up and accurate and can
impact your business and reachability on the internet.
No agreement about what the terms are or how to resolve conflict.
Really?
Would you buy transit without an agreement?
Would you expect to display a commercial or ad somewhere without an
agreement?

You can't even get a library card without agreeing to some terms.
There are a lot of hills in this industry.  This is not the hill to die on.

--Heather

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 2:25?PM William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 11:14?AM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> > That?s not a chronic condition - such folks can readily enter into an
> RSA and not only
> > obtain contractual certainty regarding their number resources, but also
> gain access to
> > ARIN?s more advanced routing services such as RPKI and authenticated IRR.
>
> Hi John,
>
> Nothing but ARIN internal politics stops you from offering an IRR+RKPI
> service independent of the registration service. Heck, 13 of the 18
> IRRs already do.
>
> For that matter, nothing stops any of those 13 IRRs from publishing a
> trust anchor and offering RPKI services. I wonder that none of them
> do.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William Herrin
> bill at herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> https://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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20240221/b3d314ce/attachment.htm>

From internal at layerbridge.com  Fri Feb 23 08:10:29 2024
From: internal at layerbridge.com (LayerBridge Internal)
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 15:10:29 +0200
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Question/Suggestion on ASN registration
Message-ID: <8868a30e-34e0-4c21-9384-a83348323e32@layerbridge.com>

Hello there,

Hope I sent this mail correctly.. I don't know if I should do anything 
before proposing things here... but I'll get straight to the point.

I was wondering if ARIN (and its members) would consider benefical a 
different approach towards AS numbers... somewhat similar to how RIPE 
works. More specifically I think would be a better way for LIR/ISP to be 
able to register AS numbers on behalf of it's customers.
For example, in our situation, we are on a "X-Small" plan; having up to 
63 ASNs included in our plan scheme. Almost all companies would agree 
that 63 ASNs for a single entity is somehow too much. Most of us really 
use 1-5 ASNs at most.

Having the possibility to reallocate ASNs in the way we can reallocate 
unused IP space to end-users, would help us somehow to compensate the 
yearly fee we pay for membership, by charging a small amount on the 
End-User for the object maintenance.

Would that be something @ARIN would consider allowing LIRs to do?

Thank you,
Andrei.
-- 
Logo <https://www.layerbridge.com> 	
LayerBridge
*Andrei Cojan* | Co-Founder & Administrator
email: andrei at layerbridge.com
BGP Info: AS3280 <https://bgp.he.net/AS3280>
For Europe:
*LayerBridge SRL*
Poligrafiei Blvd., No. 75, WhiteGate Building
1st District, Bucharest, Romania

For US & Non-EU:
*LayerBridge LLC*
8 The Green, STE R, Dover, Delaware 19901
United States
Facebook icon <https://www.facebook.com/layerbridge>

This message and any attachment are confidential and is protected from 
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please email the 
sender and delete this message and any attachment from your system. This 
correspondence and any and all documents attached to it shall not be 
qualified in each case as a contract offer unless LayerBridge SRL. has 
expressly agreed on the contrary.


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20240223/32e19154/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: nqNr9Mk0NbnUZqeB.png
Type: image/png
Size: 9541 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20240223/32e19154/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Fnjj0j5hfCQjPjb4.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1306 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20240223/32e19154/attachment-0001.png>

From bill at herrin.us  Fri Feb 23 09:26:27 2024
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 06:26:27 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Question/Suggestion on ASN registration
In-Reply-To: <8868a30e-34e0-4c21-9384-a83348323e32@layerbridge.com>
References: <8868a30e-34e0-4c21-9384-a83348323e32@layerbridge.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGXbFGuk10w7Bx_MfCq7wAKwFv=S1Wpq4Ra455ZB2FzEZA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 5:10?AM LayerBridge Internal via ARIN-consult
<arin-consult at arin.net> wrote:
> Almost all companies would agree that 63 ASNs for a single entity is somehow too much. Most of us really use 1-5 ASNs at most.

Hi Andrei,

It depends how you're using them. If you're anycasting a prefix from a
lot of locations and you do so using different AS numbers, you can
then access routing data from RIS and Routeviews and find out which
announcement reached where without needing active probes. 32-bit AS
numbers aren't especially scarce and the RIB and FIB entries don't
take any more space when you announce with multiple numbers, so
there's no real downside to doing this.

When a separate organization needs AS numbers, I'd personally rather
see them get those numbers directly from ARIN rather than from their
ISP.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William Herrin
bill at herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/


From info at arin.net  Fri Feb 23 13:42:07 2024
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 13:42:07 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Question/Suggestion on ASN registration
In-Reply-To: <8868a30e-34e0-4c21-9384-a83348323e32@layerbridge.com>
References: <8868a30e-34e0-4c21-9384-a83348323e32@layerbridge.com>
Message-ID: <4FCA727C-22B3-456B-AB04-36DDE7BAA60B@arin.net>

Hello Andrei,

 

Thank you for your post.  Our understanding is that you are proposing a policy to allow customers to reassign ASNs in the same way customers can reassign IP addresses. Such a proposal is best suited for consideration through the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP).  You can submit a policy proposal to policy at arin.net using the template found here:

 

https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/appendix_b/

 

Note that policy proposals should not include details related to operational implementation or costs.

 

All proposals are handled according to the ARIN Policy Development Process. For more information see:

https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/.

 

ARIN will forward the proposal to the ARIN Advisory Council (AC). The Chair of the AC will assign shepherds who will reach out to you. The shepherds will work with you to ensure the proposal is clear and in-scope in preparation for review by the entire AC.

 

Thank you for your interest in ARIN Internet number resource policy, and we look forward to receiving your proposal.

 

Regards,

 

John Sweeting

Chief Customer Officer

ARIN

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: ARIN-consult <arin-consult-bounces at arin.net> on behalf of LayerBridge Internal via ARIN-consult <arin-consult at arin.net>
Reply-To: LayerBridge Internal <internal at layerbridge.com>
Date: Friday, February 23, 2024 at 8:10?AM
To: "arin-consult at arin.net" <arin-consult at arin.net>
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Question/Suggestion on ASN registration

 

Hello there,

Hope I sent this mail correctly.. I don't know if I should do anything before proposing things here... but I'll get straight to the point.

I was wondering if ARIN (and its members) would consider benefical a different approach towards AS numbers... somewhat similar to how RIPE works. More specifically I think would be a better way for LIR/ISP to be able to register AS numbers on behalf of it's customers.
For example, in our situation, we are on a "X-Small" plan; having up to 63 ASNs included in our plan scheme. Almost all companies would agree that 63 ASNs for a single entity is somehow too much. Most of us really use 1-5 ASNs at most.

Having the possibility to reallocate ASNs in the way we can reallocate unused IP space to end-users, would help us somehow to compensate the yearly fee we pay for membership, by charging a small amount on the End-User for the object maintenance.

Would that be something @ARIN would consider allowing LIRs to do?

Thank you,
Andrei.

-- 

LayerBridge
Andrei Cojan | Co-Founder & Administrator 
email: andrei at layerbridge.com
BGP Info: AS3280
For Europe:
LayerBridge SRL
Poligrafiei Blvd., No. 75, WhiteGate Building 
1st District, Bucharest, Romania

For US & Non-EU:
LayerBridge LLC
8 The Green, STE R, Dover, Delaware 19901 
United States
  
This message and any attachment are confidential and is protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please email the sender and delete this message and any attachment from your system. This correspondence and any and all documents attached to it shall not be qualified in each case as a contract offer unless LayerBridge SRL. has expressly agreed on the contrary.

 

Virus-free.www.avast.com

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20240223/0a63dce4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 9542 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20240223/0a63dce4/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1307 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20240223/0a63dce4/attachment-0001.png>