[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

There is no evidence that EP.net has been contacted by anyone
at ARIN or any of the IX's regarding this.  For all we know
they would be highly agreeable - which is PRECISELY why I
am not in favor of this proposal unless it is shown that the
IX's and ARIN have exhausted all diplomatic avenues to handle
this. 

If I was EP.net and ARIN made an arbitrary change in the
NRPM that was targeted at ONLY me, without even contacting
me in advance and explaining what their problem was, I think
my response would be along the lines of you would have to pry
those addresses out of my cold, dead fingers, frankly.

I'd go out of my way to make sure the IX's that had instigated
this, would be forced to renumber.

You just do not throw this kind of thing at a company
that has been a "long been (10 years+) a reliable broker of space
for exchanges all over the world" unless the company is being
completely unreasonable.

Ted

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Scott Leibrand
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 4:28 PM
> To: Chris Malayter
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective 
> UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address
> 
> What if... <idea type=crazy> we simply asked EP.net to trade 
> in their current IX-assigned space for new space, converted 
> the returned EP.net space to critical infrastructure 
> microallocation space, and convert all EP-IX reassignments to 
> direct PI critical infrastructure assignments. 
> </idea>
> 
> This would definitely be something we could do through the 
> policy process, but it might be a way for ARIN to solve this 
> problem in a way that makes everyone happy, and requires the 
> minimum disruption possible...
> 
> -Scott
> 
> Chris Malayter wrote:
> > Leo,
> >
> > I guess the way I look at it is that the provider in 
> question has long 
> > been (10 years+) a reliable broker of space for exchanges 
> all over the 
> > world.  All of the IX's in the space have been blindsided 
> by the idea 
> > that the space was now being shopped around for sale.  It 
> would be the 
> > equivalent of ARIN deciding to pull back all the micro 
> allocations and 
> > reuse them for something else.
> >
> > The point I'm making is that this is a non-trivial issue.  
> There are, 
> > from what I have been told, at least 40 or more IX's that are 
> > potentially affected.
> >
> > Are there alternatives to a policy proposal, sure.  Are 
> they the best 
> > way to maintain stability?  I'd have to say no.  It's going to be a 
> > rough few months if we have to renumber that many IX's 
> globally, with 
> > a bunch of them in the ARIN region.
> >
> > I certainly think that this deserves the ability to move forward.
> >
> > -Chris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] 
> > On Behalf Of Leo Bicknell
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 6:43 PM
> > To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective
> > UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address
> >
> > In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 06:13:51PM 
> -0500, Martin 
> > Hannigan wrote:
> >   
> >>    What does that (EP or S/D) have to do with anything?
> >>     
> >
> > Mr Malayter made the assertion that:  
> >
> > In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:26:15AM 
> -0500, Chris 
> > Malayter wrote:
> >   
> >>    There are a large number of IX's in the North American 
> region (as
> >>     
> > well
> >   
> >>    as other regions) that have address space allocated 
> from a provider
> >>    that specializes in exchange allocations.
> >>     
> >
> > Thus it is perfectly reasonable to quantify "a large number 
> of          
> > IX's".  Since he works for Switch and Data, it seemed 
> logical to        
> > begin the detective work with where their addressing blocks 
> came from, 
> > which whois quickly locates as EP.NET.
> >
> > Mr Malayter further asserts that:
> >
> > In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:26:15AM 
> -0500, Chris 
> > Malayter wrote:
> >   
> >>    The real issue is that if the current provider was to serve a
> >>     
> > majority
> >   
> >>    of the US IX's with a cease and desist order from using 
> the space
> >>     
> > at
> >   
> >>    the term of all of the existing contracts at the end of 
> 2009 that
> >>    would force a massive renumber of most every IX in the North
> >>     
> > American
> >   
> >>    region, save one major IX.
> >>     
> >
> > If the "real issue" is that the "current provider was to 
> serve a        
> > majority of the US IX's with a cease and desist order" then 
> looking     
> > at how many folks get space from the "current provider" would be 
> > getting to the heart of the "real issue", now wouldn't it?  
> Since       
> > we know who that is, why don't we just look, rather than 
> speaking       
> > in theoretical generalities?
> >
> > This is in fact critical to evaluating the policy.  Knowing 
> how         
> > many folks might be affected by a policy change is one of 
> the first     
> > things to evaluate a policy.
> >
> > This investigation has in fact been quite useful, as we now know if 
> > there is any problem, it is a contractual problem between a company 
> > and its outsourcer, and there are already three solutions 
> available today:
> >
> > 1) Renegotiate the contract to provide stronger protections.
> >
> > 2) Find another outsourcer who can provide addresses.
> >
> > 3) Come to ARIN and use the Micro Allocation for critical 
> infrastructure
> >    policy to obtain addresses directly from ARIN.
> >
> > It appears the policy proposer would like a fourth option, 
> of having 
> > ARIN step in the middle.
> >
> > To answer John Curran's question, "I am against the policy 
> proposal as 
> > it appears there are ample other avenues for the requester 
> to get what 
> > they want."
> >
> >   
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to 
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>