[ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-6 - Abandoned
ipgoddess at gmail.com
Fri Apr 27 18:13:59 EDT 2007
I was a documented opponent to 2006-7, for the reasons I have already
stated and still believe. That being said, I need to echo Marla's
statements about the AC vote. The AC did move to abandon, but because
there was no consensus to either move it forward or work with the
author. The dividing issue on this policy was not wordsmithing, or
any other small qualification that the author could change. It was
the very heart of the proposal - whether or not end users should
qualify for /24s direct from ARIN - that was the point of contention
of the community, and it was the opinion of the majority of the AC
that the policy be abandoned for lack of consensus on that point.
I will be happy to engage in the discussion of merits of this concept
should a new policy be generated.
Really good meeting, everyone. Thank you!
On 4/27/07, Azinger, Marla <marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com> wrote:
> Owen- just FYI your certification method is setting my email alarm of
> and shows your email not trustworthy. I don't know if I'm the only one
> getting that warning about your email or not....
> As for this string of emails. Clearly there are opposing points of
> view. There always will be. That is a good thing. However, I feel
> dizzy at this point from going in conversation circles, so I am going to
> bow out from commenting anymore on this one for a while.
> One last clarification I would like to make due to your comment stating
> that "there must be more opposition on the AC to this than in the
> community". That is an assumption. The AC votes on community
> consensus. We did not see this proposal had consensus. Nor did we see
> a way to re-write it. That said, if someone has a great idea that
> manages to find a balance then that is what a new proposal would be good
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 12:12 PM
> To: Azinger, Marla
> Cc: David Williamson; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-6 - Abandoned
> > Yes, I believe this would lead to a run on IPv4 space
> Please provide any documentation you can to support this belief.
> Certainly, the equivalant policy in EVERY other RIR has not
> this problems in
> any other region, so, I'd like to see any data you have
> supports this belief.
> > Yes, I believe network providers and ISP's can cut off and clean up
> > IP space used by spammers faster than ARIN ( and I think that is
> > important).
> Network providers can clean it up by de-routing it and adding it
> the bogon filters
> etc. This can be done whether the space is a direct
> from ARIN or
> > Yes, I believe it is MUCH easier to fudge justification for a /24
> > than a /22 and set yourself up for hording IP addresses and
> > possibly using them on black-market in the future.
> Again, data to support this belief would be good. I'm pretty
> familiar with what it
> takes to justify a /22, and, I think it's pretty trivial
> if you're
> willing to commit
> fraud either way.
> > So again (sorry) I still don't support the proposal that no
> > consensus was found for or one that like it in the near future.
> Yep... I expected that. I'm also pretty sure that the vote in
> room was much
> closer than the vote in the AC meeting. I believe there
> is more
> to this policy on the AC than in the community.
> Now, as to your other comments:
> Yes, in terms of ARIN participation, this policy is championed by a
> small (but growing)
> group of people active in ARIN. One of the reasons for that is that
> the majority of
> organizations that would benefit from this policy are not present for
> ARIN public
> policy meetings. For them, the network is a tool and not their core
> business. As
> such, it's kind of hard to justify the time, travel budget, etc.
> Most of them depend on
> outsource companies and people like me to do that for them.
> While there's no provision for this fact in the public policy
> process, I was actually
> representing no less than 5 organizations with ARIN resources all of
> who would
> like to see this policy implemented.
> In addition, I have at least 10 clients who would benefit from this
> policy because
> it would allow them to multihome without taking additional routing
> slots and without
> business risk of abrupt renumbering being required when their
> provider goes
> out of business. These concerns are sufficiently important to at
> least half of them
> that they affect their SoX compliance.
> Hopefully that places the need in some perspective.
> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
> (PPML at arin.net).
> Manage your mailing list subscription at:
More information about the ARIN-PPML