[arin-ppml] Not petitioning proposal 103

Sweeting, John john.sweeting at twcable.com
Tue Jan 5 09:12:50 EST 2010


First I would like to wish you a Happy and Prosperous New Year and second I would like to thank you on behalf of the AC for your show of cooperation and continued enthusiasm to move forward working with the AC. We owe you an answer to your question below and I will take it as an action to get you an answer as soon as possible. Last thing I want to leave with you is the fact that the AC is dedicated to recommending good, sound policy be approved and we truly appreciate all the members of the community that provide us the guidance and information required to do so.

Thanks again,

On 1/1/10 2:34 AM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

Apparently I need to enable "mail goggles" after all. Please disregard
my last message and let's try that again...

On consideration, I won't petition the AC's abandonment of proposal
103. I accept the AC's conclusion that there is more that can be done
in the process before pushing a formal proposal.

I enthusiastically support proposal 106. Scott incorporated those
parts of 103's improvements that do not depend on abandoning
needs-based allocation. I think he did a good job and I think the
result would significantly improve ARIN's IPv6 address management
process. I'll be very disappointed if 106 is not accepted to the AC's
docket for formal discussion and presentation.

Proposal 103 raised another issue that I believe we should address as
a community: should ARIN be the gatekeeper to Internet routing policy?

In most of the time since ARIN's inception, the question has been
moot: network operators depend on ARIN to act as a check on IPv4
routing table growth lest the Internet collapse. With IPv4, no
credible method has been proposed for controlling route table growth
without RIR policy enforcement. It's a bona fide "tragedy of the
commons" problem.

Proposal 103 offered a credible way to maintain control of IPv6 route
table growth without requiring ARIN to act as the gatekeeper to
Internet routing in North America. Perhaps not an optimal way, but at
least a credible one. Now that we know there's one way, we may
discover that there are more.

So, now that we actually have a choice, should ARIN be set IPv6
Internet routing policy for North America? Or would we all be better
off letting the ISPs reach a functional consensus that isn't tied to
ARIN's operation?

I'd like to see further discussion, particularly about the "how."
Proposal 103 did it with ARIN fees used as a proxy to classify the
network registrant's perception of the value of his system. What other
methods might work?

I'd also like to see all of this presented at this year's meetings.
Judging from the response to proposal 103, moving ARIN out of the
routing policy game has wide enough interest and support to merit
presentation. Open policy hour doesn't seem like the best opportunity
to present a topic as complex and detail-oriented as this appears to
be. It's also sparsely enough attended that it may not be possible to
get a good feel for the attendees' views. So, question for the AC:
short of a formal proposal, how do we go about getting a presentation
on the meeting agenda?

Finally, I'd like to thank each of you who committed privately to
support a petition. We could have forced it forward and should it
become necessary we still can. Let's give it another discussion and
meeting cycle and see what happens first.

Bill Herrin

William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
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:
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner
Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential,
or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail
is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which
it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this
E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents
of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any
copy of this E-mail and any printout.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list