[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

Post IPv4 runout, ARIN is likely going to be doing quite a lot
of this, as there will be many special situations that arise
as IPv4 block holders go though changes.

Rule of thumb is to always lead-off with a kind word,
then follow with the 2x4 if the kind word doesen't work.

Ted


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 4:53 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: 'Chris Malayter'; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective 
> UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address
> 
> 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.
> >>
> >>     
> >
> >   
>