[arin-discuss] Is Determining Legitimate IP usage objective or subjective? was Re: Policy clarification

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

I'll continue the top post, my apologies.  I think the meat of the
matter is your statement here:

 > If allocating IPs are matter of public policy, then it should have a
 > sufficient level of discretion in order for the requesters to know
 > exactly and objectively why it was denied as any public office
 > transparency needs, instead of a subjective judgement.

and I have retitled the post.  Hopefully this will restart discussion
as I think the example cited is overwhelming the meat of the question.

My personal belief is that ARIN is scrutinizing IPv4 requests more
closely now than they were 5 years ago, while the stated criteria
in the NRPM hasn't really changed over that same time.  That would
constitute evidence of a subjective process under the definition of
the word, I believe.

But I do not think there is anything in the NRPM that precludes
ARIN using a subjective process.  Actually, I think ARIN's role as IPv4 
steward particularly in the face of the accelleration to IPv4 runout, 
would call for it to be using a subjective process.  Thus I think
your premise, that the process be objective, isn't correct.


Ted


On 6/28/2010 9:49 AM, IPTelligent SysOp wrote:
> Ted,
>
> I think you have mistaken my statements as if I was the unsatisfied
> user for having the allocation denied.
>
> a) It's not my project. Not a customer of mine too. No interest in
> having that guy as a customer also (as you noticed I don't want
> political problems), I just wonder about them and the backend reasons.
>
> b) No interest in trolling or complaining. I'm happy with the current
> allocations and have no need for extra ones, nor have any problem with
> any denied or pending request so far.
>       If I had them I would certainly voice to hostmaster. If the
> hostmaster reply wasn't satisfactory, then I would voice it on the
> list.
>       In fact I agree with a restrictive policy, but the interest in this
> thread is to know more detailedly about what can and what cannot be
> done and the scrutiny process, in order exactly to avoid action based
> on the oneliners or "the fine print". What everyone here doesn't want,
> I think, is the _surprise_ of allocating in good faith for such
> projects (being for commercial or humanitary reasons) and then later
> beind denied expansion in the ground of "unjustifiable reasons" for the
> current blocks.
>
> c) If allocating IPs are matter of public policy, then it should have a
> sufficient level of discretion in order for the requesters to know
> exactly and objectively why it was denied as any public office
> transparency needs, instead of a subjective judgement. It is a
> technical reason? It is a political reason? It is something that is a
> taboo that can't be touched? It would be sufficient to have an official
> statement "the allocation for this application cannot be allowed since
> it will /a/generate political problems between RIRs or giving ammo to
> governments to try to control us/a/ /b/uselessly spend IPv4 addresses
> that are already in shortage /b/ /c/". Or a statement on the NRPM
> detailing upfront which applications/uses are allowed and which are
> denied, or exemplifications of what will be accepted and what will not
> be accepted.
>
> c) As Aaron, I am a so frequent user of the forums (WebHostingTalk) I
> quoted the request that the guy had from. He was in search for
> providers. There was the venue where the issue was raised, practically
> everybody at WHT - meaning representatives of big datacenters, tier 2
> carriers, and all kinds of hosting companies - states this isn't
> justifiable reasons on ARIN grounds (and until now I just echoed them
> as a parrot - and waved goodbye to a handful of prospects who hadn't
> "enough" justification). Of course, most of the prospects that come to
> us want to do something illegal like spamming, others come wanting
> whole /19s for wireless service providing (and buying 1Gbps of service
> from you)
>
> d) As an admin with more than 10 years of experience I am pretty aware
> it's easy to block - I agree with that. And any Cisco ASA (5520 up)
> nowadays supports more than 750 simultaneous VPN users (goes up to
> 10,000 for the biggest model). Bandwidth nowadays is also not an issue
> and even less an expense (when you can get it for $0.70 per Mbps and
> 10GE ports easily). Doable it is, just don't know how much time would
> it last. At the same time, what gets to my mind is that guy must be
> having some success since he's been using tons of addresses from RIPE
> for that purpose.
>
> e) Why this process of justification would be faster or simpler in RIPE
> than in ARIN? I mean, we are really discussing a lot for nothing here,
> but it is voicing of past experience that such allocations may bring
> trouble. While in the other side of the Atlantic, it is not an issue at
> all. I'm just trying to understand the differences and reasoning under
> it. As simple as that.
> f) Am I wrong in putting this matter for discussion in this list as it
> would not be the correct venue for that? If yes, please someone let me
> know.
>
> Regards,
> Rafael
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Ted Mittelstaedt"<tedm at ipinc.net>
> To: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Sent: 6/28/2010 12:44:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Policy clarification
>>
>> This is the first time you mentioned an allocation as large as a /23
>> in conjunction with this "circumventation "the Great Firewall of
>> China"
>> project" Is that project intending to use a /23? You know
>> you can get an -authoritative- reading by e-mailing the specific
>> details
>> of this project to "hostmaster at arin.net" and by posting here you also
>> know you want opinions in response. And as for throwing in all of the
>> "political issue on government level" rubbish in your original post,
>> it seems evident that your just trolling here.
>>
>> As I privately explained to you and as others explained, this scheme
>> isn't going to represent a significant problem for the Chinese admins
>> to block. You have ignored those comments and are just attempting to
>> stir the pot, more evidence of trolling.
>>
>> As for Aaron's comment, the definition of "technical uses" is
>> subjective, so at face value his black-and-white statement is wrong,
>> anyone can see that who has read the NRPM or gone through an address
>> block request. Is your goal to throw out random statements until
>> you get someone making a short, incorrect one-liner like Aaron then
>> sit back and watch the firefight? That's trolling.
>>
>> If you have something to say about ARIN, then say it. If this
>> circumvention project is real, then post the specific details,
>> how many addresses is it going to use, what platform, etc. It is
>> a fact that not much gear out there will terminate 500 -simultaneous-
>> VPN sessions without rolling over and dying, not to mention pass
>> multiple megabits per sec. of data over all 500 of them
>> simultaneously.
>> And who has the bandwidth for that? Not many.
>> The more comments you make about this "circumvention" project
>> the more obvious it is technically impractical, thus non-existent.
>>
>>
>> Ted
>>
>> On 6/25/2010 2:04 PM, IPTelligent SysOp wrote:
>>> Aaron,
>>>
>>> Then I wonder why, last time I requested a second address block for
>>> the
>>> company, I was asked for technical justification for all the
>>> reassigned
>>> and reallocated blocks that were equal to or higher than a /24, based
>>> exactly on SWIP information? Don't remember the exact words now, but
>>> I
>>> was asked "Why did you allocate a /23 to company X, what was the
>>> justification they provided" and how much equipment is connected to
>>> that block, how many hosts, how many shared webhosting, how many etc,
>>> what are the reverse hostnames for each of those IPs?
>>> Isn't that technical use justification, or it's just for statistics
>>> (and then why not mention it's optional)?
>>> For a customer that I had reassigned space from the carrier (and so I
>>> couldn't reallocate to the end user), I had to submit a long customer
>>> list with the subnetting that was made, per customer (not much work
>>> as
>>> the customer collaborated to it, but then, I had to reformat all the
>>> list). Would it be completely unnecessary?
>>> Regards,
>>> Rafael
>>>
>>> ------ Original Message ------
>>> From: "Aaron Wendel"<aaron at wholesaleinternet.net>
>>> To: "IPTelligent SysOp"<sysop at iptelligent.com>;arin-discuss at arin.net
>>> Sent: 6/25/2010 5:52:10 PM
>>> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Policy clarification
>>>> ARIN does not specify technical uses for IP address space.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ARIN-Discuss
>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>> _______________________________________________
>> ARIN-Discuss
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>
>