[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address

Wed Feb 11 19:52:53 EST 2009

I agree.  From everything I've seen, EP.net has done an excellent job up 
until now.  They're in a period of transition, so we should actively 
reach out to constructively assist as much as possible.

I'll follow up internally and make sure someone from ARIN is running 
with this.  I can't speak for the rest of the AC, but I personally will 
want to see how that plays out before we do any work on developing this 
policy proposal into draft policy. 

-Scott

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> 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.
>>
>>     
>
>   