[arin-ppml] Policy proposal: Penalize IPv4 bad actors
cblecker at gmail.com
Fri Sep 7 02:16:58 EDT 2012
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 4:02 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0
> Policy Proposal Name: Penalize IPv4 bad actors
> Proposal Originator
> name: William Herrin
> email: bill at herrin.us
> telephone: 703-534-2652
> organization: Self
> Proposal Version: 1
> Date: 9/6/2012
> Proposal type: new
> Policy term: temporary, 2 years
> Policy statement:
> Network infrastructure operators who as a condition of access under
> government regulations require third party ISPs to manage IP addresses
> in a manner inconsistent with ARIN policy are themselves ineligible to
> hold ARIN number resources.
> If no reasonable technology (deployed or otherwise) could both meet
> the government regulations and permit compliance with ARIN IP address
> policy, this policy shall not apply.
> It has come to light that certain Canadian cable operators have
> attempted to play Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications
> Commission Third Party Internet Access rules off ARIN policy in a
> manner which thwarts ARIN efforts maximize IPv4 address utilization,
> thwarts CRTC efforts to open access to the cable Internet
> infrastructure or does both. While various reasonable sounding
> technical and non-technical explanations for this classic monopoly
> behavior have been offered it is nevertheless reprehensible.
> While it is not and should not be ARIN's job to break monopolies, ARIN
> should not permit itself to be played off any government regulatory
> agency to the detriment of the communities each serves.
> It is the author's hope that this policy proposal becomes moot long
> before the board need consider adoption as a result of the offenders
> finding a technically and politically feasible way to do the right
> Timetable for implementation: 6 months following adoption
> END OF TEMPLATE
I'm going to assume that this is a serious proposal, and comment as such.
It's my belief that ARIN should not put it self in the position of
penalizing resource holders based on their political or business
decisions (other than those that directly impact the resources that
the organization itself holds).
The way I see this whole issue being resolved is in one of two ways:
- The ARIN community adopts ARIN-2012-7 and in doing so provides a
policy-based solution for TPIA operators to architect their network
while still being in compliance with utilization requirements.
- The ARIN community choses not to adopt ARIN-2012-7. Without this
policy, number resources become an effective roadblock to progressing
with TPIA expansions. The issue is then out of ARIN's hands, and will
likely be solved either technologically by the TPIA operators (through
use of CGN, IPv6 GRE, etc) or it will be solved by the CRTC
policy-wise to force incumbent operators to architect their own
networks differently or provide more details to TPIA operators so that
they can plan better.
However, for ARIN to effectively take a side in this dispute and try
to force the hand of incumbent operators or the CRTC is both dangerous
ground to trend, and bad precedent to set. If this community truly
disagrees with having to modify it's policy in the way described in
ARIN-2012-7, then the draft policy should be defeated, and we move on.
I opposed this proposal both in concept, and as written.
More information about the ARIN-PPML