[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address
Scott Leibrand
scottleibrand at gmail.com
Wed Feb 11 20:16:10 EST 2009
Well, for what it's worth, the one Exchange I know of who has discussed
this in public (on a list I'm subscribed to) is the SIX in Seattle.
There, the discussion has focused on getting a CI PI /24 from ARIN, and
renumbering everyone into it. I suspect that a direct relationship
between each IX and ARIN is the best long-term solution. But if we
could convert the existing EP.net reassignments to direct ARIN critical
infrastructure assignments, that would also save the pain of renumbering...
-Scott
Cliff Bedore wrote:
> Scott Leibrand wrote:
>> 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...
>>
>
> Or maybe the American entrepreneurial spirit will revive itself and
> one of those who are concerned/involved will buy the company and solve
> the problem. This doesn't strike me as a policy issue but a business
> decision. I know none of the parties involved but this seems to me to
> be more bailout-itis syndrome than an ARIN issue.
>
> Cliff
>> -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