[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address

[Scott Leibrand]

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.
>>
>>   
>