[ppml] Policy 2002-5

[Bill Darte]

I'm not sure I like the sentence related to organization name change, but
beyond that I thing we should resolve the 2 outstanding issues raised by
Stacy and Michael....namely....  12 months is too long (Stacy) and "If the
amnesty policy improves the registration data then that is 
good. However if it changes the map of allocations then that is bad."
(Michael)..........

Can either (both) of you suggest alternative wording that addresses your
concerns?

billd

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taylor, Stacy [mailto:Stacy_Taylor at icgcomm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 3:52 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy 2002-5
> 
> 
> And, if we do move it forward, how do we feel about the rewording? 
> 
> Again,
> 
> If an organization, whether a member or non-member, ISP or end-user,
> relinquishes a larger block of portable address space to 
> ARIN, they shall be
> allowed to receive a smaller block, /24 or shorter, in exchange.   The
> organization will not be required to justify their use of the 
> new, smaller
> block.  The organization must return the block to be 
> exchanged within 12
> months.  ARIN staff shall, at their discretion, determine whether the
> smaller replacement block shall be a subnet of the returned 
> block, or a
> block allocated from some different range. In the case of an 
> organization
> name change for address resource records, ARIN's normal 
> transfer policies
> will apply. If the exchanged address block was maintained in the ARIN
> database without maintenance fees, the replacement space 
> shall be as well.
> Likewise, if the returned block had associated maintenance 
> fees, then the
> replacement block shall also be subject to maintenance fees.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sweeting, John [mailto:John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 12:12 PM
> To: 'Michael.Dillon at radianz.com'; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy 2002-5
> 
> 
> Do you really see any problem with moving this forward? It is 
> not meant to
> cure the world ills; only as one small positive step forward.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com [mailto:Michael.Dillon at radianz.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 12:52 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy 2002-5
> 
> 
> >Hi Everyone,
> >On the same vein, how do we feel about this rewording?  
> Also, I again 
> feel
> >that 12 months is way too long a time, especially if the 
> organization is
> >already not using a part of the space.
> 
> I think that we should set aside this issue until it can be 
> more clearly 
> formulated and discussed. One issue that I see is that this 
> is trying to 
> do two different things and I believe that we need two more focused 
> policies to accomplish that. Firstly, we want to contact all 
> legacy users 
> of IPv4 space and get them to become part of the system, i.e. keep in 
> touch and register their up to date contact information. 
> Secondly, we want 
> to organize the pre-ARIN IPv4 space in a more logical manner 
> because we 
> can probably achieve a higher usage rate by doing so. And 
> maybe thirdly, 
> we want legacy users to pay for service. At a minimum there is the 
> in-addr.arpa service, but a case can be made for part of the 
> routability 
> attribute being provided by being legitimately registered with ARIN.
> 
> Therefore, let's drop the specific proposal 2002-5 and let's begin to 
> discuss how we can better address its contents in a more focused and 
> coordinated way.
> 
> I would suggest that there be a program to contact all 
> holders of legacy 
> IPv4 space and that we should tell them that they MUST register their 
> contact information with their RIR or else relinquish their 
> allocation. 
> This is not a hardship for any address space holder. Some 
> organizations 
> may claim that their use of the space is outside of the 
> public Internet 
> and therefore they should be left alone, however I disagree. 
> They should 
> still at minimum register their contact info and the status 
> of the space. 
> Whether or not they should legitimately continue to be given 
> exclusive 
> usage rights to the space is something that we should not be 
> dealing with 
> at all right now. We just need to know who has the usage 
> rights to every 
> single fragment of the IPv4 space.
> 
> If, in fact, we are going to reorganize the layout of the legacy 
> allocations such as the swamp, then I believe that we need 
> more discussion 
> and some joint action with the other RIRs. Any policy 
> relating to this 
> should be identically worded with all RIRs. I believe that it 
> is a good 
> idea to swap space only if the result is a less chaotic map 
> of the IPv4 
> space at the level of RIR allocations to members. What I mean is that 
> today we know that in certain ranges, the RIR allocated all 
> blocks at /19 
> or larger. In other ranges the RIRs allocated at /20 or 
> larger. If we can 
> reorganize the swamp so that there are defined ranges in which all 
> allocations are /21 or larger, /22 or larger, /23 or larger 
> and /24 or 
> larger then this would be a good thing. But we won't really 
> know how big 
> to make these ranges until we have an idea of who has legacy 
> usage rights 
> and still wishes to retain those rights. Also, once we decide to 
> reorganize the space through swapping, we should have at 
> least a rough 
> plan for offering new allocations with the same sizes. And perhaps we 
> should even be issuing smaller blocks than /24 in a defined range for 
> small multihomed networks.
> 
> And then there is payment for service which is an issue that 
> strikes at 
> the heart of what a registry is and what it does. Here, I 
> believe we need 
> a vision that goes beyond matters such as swamp cleaning in 
> the IPv4 space 
> but also encompasses the future when IPv6 is so widely 
> deployed that we 
> have decided to abandon the IPv4 space entirely. People will still be 
> using IPv4 for lots of things but we won't have any need for a global 
> registry for IPv4 anymore.
> 
> At that time, I still see some value in having RIRs and I see 
> that there 
> are services for which fees should be paid. ARIN will still be the 
> maintainer of the single authoritative database that identifies the 
> organization which has legitimate rights of use for any specific IP 
> address. For various reasons, I feel that ARIN should be flexing its 
> muscle a little more in this area. One thing that I believe 
> ARIN should do 
> is to provide a new form of routing registry which identifies 
> who has the 
> usage rights to every block and which references any local routing 
> registry which that rights holder may be operating. It should 
> be possible 
> for every network operator to verify their incoming route 
> announcements by 
> querying such a registry either in realtime or by mirroring 
> the database. 
> Whether or not anyone does in fact do such validation is not 
> important nor 
> is it important whether or not they trust ARIN well enough to 
> hook the 
> registry directly to their routers. The important issue here 
> is that ARIN 
> should make an authoritative database available for queries 
> and mirroring 
> and that ARIN should enforce this database by removing the 
> data when an 
> organization is no longer in good standing. 
> 
> In any case, it would be nice if you all would change the 
> subject lines of 
> any replies to this message because there are really 4 
> separate threads 
> that could be started from these suggestions. Thanks.
> 
> -- Michael Dillon
>