[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address
Scott Leibrand
scottleibrand at gmail.com
Wed Feb 11 20:06:30 EST 2009
Yeah. I think ARIN (the organization) does a good job of that.
Unfortunately, it's a bit harder to coordinate an entire community, so
we get cases like this where the first time a lot of us hear about the
problem is when a policy fix is proposed through the public policy process.
I think we're on a constructive path now, though.
-Scott
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list