[ppml] PPML Digest, Vol 23, Issue 57

Tue May 22 12:21:49 EDT 2007

Let's take him off the list.

On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 12:00 -0400, ppml-request at arin.net wrote:
> Send PPML mailing list submissions to
> 	ppml at arin.net
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	ppml-request at arin.net
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	ppml-owner at arin.net
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of PPML digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Notice: ARIN AC Disposition of IPv4 Soft Landing policy
>       proposal (Bill Darte)
>    2. Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: article about IPv6 vs firewalls
>       vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot) (bmanning at karoshi.com)
>    3. Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: article about IPv6 vs firewalls
>       vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot) (Randy Bush)
>    4. Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: article about IPv6 vs firewalls
>       vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot) (bmanning at karoshi.com)
>    5. Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: article about IPv6 vs firewalls
>       vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot) (Owen DeLong)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 09:08:59 -0500
> From: "Bill Darte" <BillD at cait.wustl.edu>
> Subject: [ppml] Notice: ARIN AC Disposition of IPv4 Soft Landing
> 	policy	proposal
> To: <ppml at arin.net>
> Message-ID:
> 	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D030871E59F4 at ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> Hello,
> 
> The ARIN Advisory Council at its May 17 meeting chose to 'work with the
> author', David Conrad, to potentially modify the IPv4 Soft Landing
> policy proposal rather than accept it 'as is'.  This AC decision was
> based upon the ppml discussion leading up the AC meeting on May 17.
> 
> David Conrad has agreed to rework the policy proposal to incorporate
> feedback from the ppml, ARIN staff and ARIN counsel and the AC.
> 
> Following was the analysis presented and forming the basis for the AC
> determination.
> 
> *************************
> PPML summary:
> In excess of 60 (mostly) relevant postings from about 20 entities (as of
> 1pm Central)
> 
> Declarations:
> For - 4
> Against - 4
> On the fence - 1
> 
> Primary points:
> Staging provides gradual and transparent increases in v4 efficiency
> requirements and v6 engagement.  
> Looks to be too many stages given 'new' end-date provided by Geoff
> Huston (31 Dec '09) - this view supported by author
> Is it even needed, or can it work given current end-date suggested by
> Geoff Huston?
> Be better to abandon proposal and focus on educational outreach and
> 'tools' to support v6 adoption
> Focuses ISP only - author said he could include enduser portion by
> popular demand, didn't seem to be much
> 'Forces' the investment of ISPs in v6 infrastructure and perhaps
> marketing to get new ration of v4 - is this pressure part of ARIN's
> charter?
> Proposal may need to be global policy with some skepticism that all
> regions would adopt same-text policy in (at least) a timely fashion 
> Suggestion that ARIN or 3rd party would do a formalized audit with
> majority opinion that requester would pay
> Cost of audit might make expensive secondary market for IPv4 more
> reasonable...issue of auditor certification issues raised
> Concern that implementation might cause ARIN to review previous
> allocations in light of IPv6 hurdles as part of a reclamation program
> Suggestion that if/when edits to proposal are finished, a ppml 'survey'
> should be used to get better sense of consensus - author agrees
> 
> Proposal as is, has adequate clarity of proposal statement and rationale
> and is from an author likely to present it personally
> Author also seems willing to rewrite to increase
> acceptance/appropriateness
> 
> My recommendation to AC:  Work with the author - given the interest in
> this topic overall
> 
> Considerations to abandon:  Legal issues surrounding audit and requiring
> ISP to adopt a technology they are not asking for.  Possibly outside the
> scope of ARIN's role of number resource stewards. Impractical if it
> cannot be adopted globally in similar fashion.  May be better addressed
> by educational and media outreach.
> *****************************
> 
> Thank you all for your interest an involvement with ARIN public policy
> evaluation.  Please continue to express your opinions and suggestions on
> how the IPv4 Soft Landing proposal could be modified to make it most
> valuable to the community.  And, the Advisory Council will be most
> appreciative of your declaration For or Against the proposal as this
> helps removes subjective assessment of consensus.
> 
> 
> Bill Darte
> ARIN AC and 
> Policy proposal shepherd for IPv4 Soft Landing
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/attachments/20070522/50a59139/attachment-0001.html
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 15:24:06 +0000
> From: bmanning at karoshi.com
> Subject: Re: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Re: article about IPv6 vs
> 	firewalls	vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
> To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch at muada.com>
> Cc: ARIN PPML <ppml at arin.net>, address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Message-ID: <20070522152406.GA25888 at vacation.karoshi.com.>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 10:45:12AM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> > 
> > Don't forget that address space is only useful if it's (almost)  
> > universally accepted. 
> 
> 	that is hardly true.  
> 
> > Just make sure the price is high enough that people aren't going to  
> > use up excessively large amounts and any domain registry/registrar  
> > should be able to give those out. 
> 
> 	selling numbers eh?  thats a neat trick.  will RIPE sell me address
> 	space?
> 
> --bill
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 11:41:35 -0400
> From: Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>
> Subject: Re: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Re: article about IPv6 vs
> 	firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
> To: Nick Hilliard <nick at inex.ie>
> Cc: ARIN PPML <ppml at arin.net>, address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Message-ID: <46530F2F.2050400 at psg.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> > 4 years from now, there will be an active IPv4 address space market,
> > whatever about ipv6.
> 
> bingo!
> 
> what amazes me is the lack of real work on the problem that a a jillion
> v6-only sites can not connect to the internet in a useful scalable way.
>  without that, everyone will continue to need ipv4 space for a loooooong
> time.  and it will be sliced and diced, and bought and sold, in smaller
> and smaller pieces.  and nats will be ubiquitous, as if they were not
> already.  this is not a pleasing picture.  but it's the likely reality.
> 
> randy
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 15:45:30 +0000
> From: bmanning at karoshi.com
> Subject: Re: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Re: article about IPv6 vs
> 	firewalls	vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
> To: Nick Hilliard <nick at inex.ie>
> Cc: ARIN PPML <ppml at arin.net>, address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Message-ID: <20070522154530.GB25888 at vacation.karoshi.com.>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 04:33:28PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> > bmanning at karoshi.com wrote:
> > >	selling numbers eh?  thats a neat trick.  will RIPE sell me address
> > >	space?
> > 
> > 4 years from now, there will be an active IPv4 address space market, 
> > whatever about ipv6.
> 
> 	sucker bet.  :)
> 	there is already an active IPv4 address space market.
> 
> --bill
> 
> > 
> > Nick
> > 
> > -- 
> > Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations      | Tel: +353 1 6169698
> > 3 Westland Square    | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981
> > Dublin 2, Ireland    | Exchange Association    | Email: nick at inex.ie
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 08:48:33 -0700
> From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> Subject: Re: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Re: article about IPv6 vs
> 	firewalls	vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
> To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch at muada.com>
> Cc: ppml at arin.net, "address-policy-wg at ripe.net"
> 	<address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Message-ID: <47C380E7-AF3C-47DF-A0DC-C60BA39989DC at delong.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> 
> On May 22, 2007, at 1:51 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> 
> > On 15-mei-2007, at 9:57, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> >
> >> And the only way to control ULA-central is to have it within the
> >> RIR system,
> >
> > How would that work in practice? Approximately 100% of all
> > organizations use RFC 1918 space. Obviously one use for RFC 1918
> > space goes away with IPv6 (NAT) but I'd say that the number of
> > internet users requiring some kind of local addressing will still be
> > 10, 20, 30 or more percent. The RIR membership is measured in
> > thousands. So tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of
> > organizations that may want ULA-c space have no relationship with an
> > RIR. They may not even have a relationship with an ISP...
> >
> First of all, at least in the case of ARIN, membership is not a  
> requirement
> for obtaining Address space.  I realize that in RIPE and APNIC,
> membership is required.  However, nobody actually NEEDS local
> addressing, technically.  Technically, people NEED addressing.
> The distinction between local and global addressing is mostly
> an administrative convenience. There is no local addressing purpose
> for which global addresses are inadequate or infeasible.
> 
> I'm quite sure that the RIRs can handle additional business  
> relationships
> just fine. If someone has neither a relationship with an ISP nor a
> relationship with an RIR, then, one of those two things will have
> to change before they get addresses assigned.  Same way things
> work today, except for RFC-1918 and ULA-Local.
> > So how are the RIRs supposed to manage their relationship with 10 or
> > 100 times as many people as they have relationships with now?
> >
> Same way they do now.  Might require beefier or more servers, and an
> increased staff, but, I would expect that with 10-100 times the fees  
> rolling
> in, that won't be a problem.
> 
> Owen
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: smime.p7s
> Type: application/pkcs7-signature
> Size: 2105 bytes
> Desc: not available
> Url : http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/attachments/20070522/ee8a1a90/smime-0001.bin
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> 
> 
> End of PPML Digest, Vol 23, Issue 57
> ************************************