[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles
Andrew Dul
andrew.dul at quark.net
Sat Jun 1 13:24:57 EDT 2013
Jason, further comments inline.
On 5/30/2013 10:18 PM, Jason Schiller wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> (Putting aside the RFC-2050 3.1 - does this create a new ability to
> revoke legacy IPs for the other thread)
>
> Your comments boil down to:
>
> 1. it comes down to "modernizing" the 2050 text/principles
> 2. keeping principles in the principles section and not putting
> specific policy in the principles section.
>
> In general I agree with both.
>
> I tried to start with 2050 text/principles, and only attempted to go
> beyond that text where it helped,
> e.g. such as substituting "efficient use" for conservation (nobody
> uses conservation) but still paying
> homage to the conservation section that this principle stems from.
>
> It is possible that some of the language from 2050 is to detailed or
> "policy specific" and should be
> stripped away and moved into other more relevant sections of the NRPM.
> This may be a bit tricky to
> do in separate proposals as you want both things to happen.
>
> I propose we ether initially adopt, then decide if certain details
> should be moved elsewhere, or
> figure out which specific details should be moved where,and include
> them in this proposal (or both).
>
> But just because there already is a detailed section on say transfers,
> doesn't mean it shouldn't also
> be included in the principles section that
>
> "The transfer of Internet number resources from one party to another
> must be approved by the regional
> registries. The party trying to obtain the resources must meet the
> same criteria as if they were
> requesting resources directly from the IR."
I think having a transfers section in the principles, document is
appropriate, I would point out that today the transfer policies are
different from the direct RIR policies, e.g. 24months vs. 3 months. So
today we don't follow the above principle.
I'd propose the following updated text:
The transfer of Internet number resources from one organization to
another must be approved by a RIR. Transfer policies are created by
Internet stakeholders through the community driven policy development
process.
>
> One could image that the ARIN community decides that there should be
> no transfers, and all
> redistribution of addresses should be through return to IANA and split
> equally among the RIRs.
> In this case the ARIN community could abolish the text on transfers.
> Would we then loose the
> principle that if a transfer was to happen (say a new transfer policy
> in the future) it should be
> governed by the same principles of getting address space directly from
> the RIRs?
>
> Specific text changes:
>
> 1. number resources
>
> I agree we should try to use number resources as much as possible
> where it makes sense.
> I'm not sure who owns the text at this point, I think maybe the AC.
> They should look very
> carefully at each use of IP address and see if number resource can
> be substituted without
> creating some strage IP address specific restriction on ASNs.
>
> 2. IPv4/IPv6 protocol differences
>
> I am not opposed to adding "Conservation goals may vary due to the
> technical differences
> between IP number resources pools." to section 0.4 just after to
> the sentence "Care must be taken
> to ensure balance with these conflicting goals given the resource
> availability, relative size of the
> resource, and number resource specific technical dynamics, for each
> type of number resource."
>
> I felt like that was covered under "relative size of the resource, and
> number resource specific
> technical dynamics", and the following examples of how the balance
> shifts directly illustrates that.
> But if it is not clear enough, the additional text you recommend will
> be helpful.
>
> 3. sustainability
>
> I'm happy to accept some text on this... but I'm not exactly sure what
> it is..
While using "sustainability" instead of "conservation" would be a
textual change, it might be a positive change. To me what the RIRs do
with number resources today are more closely aligned with the definition
of sustainability vs conservation.
Sustainability to me means managing a resource for all stakeholders.
Conservation sometimes means preserving the status quo or excluding
certain uses to protect the resource.
The word "conservation" appears 3 times in the current posted draft.
Just substituting the word "sustainability" seems to make sense to me.
This might however be too much a of a jump for others.
>
> 4. documentation to promote increased utilization
>
> So I think there are a number of reasons accurate documentation is
> important,
> and I think one of them is so that the RIR can measure utilization and
> judge
> current usage prior to deciding to give additional space. This
> process causes
> more efficient utilization over all.
>
> I think this aspect is important, and should be included. It is
> possible the some
> word smithing may be in order.
>
> "Resource holders will be required to provide an accounting of
> resources currently held
> in order to provide the necessary transparency and accountability.
> This information provides
> IRs the ability to measure efficient utilization of current
> space prior to allocating or assigning
> additional space."
I the above proposed text is pretty good.
>
> 5. transfers
>
> I agree, the details of transfer policy should be in the "main"
> portion of the NRPM, and already is,
> and that is where the details of transfers should be documented.
>
> But I also think RFC-2050 gives us some high level guiding principles
> wrt transfers:
> A. RIRs must approve
> B. must be consistent with the criteria as if they were requesting an
> IP address directly
>
> I think these principles should be included.
>
> I am not opposed to the text "RIRs shall determine IP number resources
> transfer policies through
> their community driven policy development process." In fact all
> policies (except emergency ones)
> are determined by the community through the PDP...but I'm not sure
> that changes anything.
See above proposed text and comments.
>
> 6. audit
>
> I think some guiding principle text is important here. This text was
> lifter from RFC-2050.
> Again, not intending to create new capabilities here, but think this
> principle (in some form is important)
>
>
> If the community thinks it is superseded by text in the NRPM and RSA,
> I am happy to use that text as
> a basis for pulling out some high-level principles.
>
> Is there RSA or NRPM text that is high level enough to use here? How
> would you propose to create
> high level principles from the RSA and NRPM text?
>
> ___Jason
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net
> <mailto:andrew.dul at quark.net>> wrote:
>
> Hi Jason,
>
>
> On 5/28/2013 9:04 PM, Jason Schiller wrote:
>> Andrew thanks for your feed back.
>>
>> I want to point out that much of this language comes from either
>> RFC-2050 or the current PDP or NRPM. I tired to change the
>> language as little as possible, except where we have
>> commonly agreed on new language such as
>> "efficient utilization" instead of conservation. I thought that
>> might be the most uncontroversial starting point. I am not
>> opposed to changing it, especially if it makes the text less
>> controversial.
>>
> I didn't have any of those docs in front of me when reviewing the
> proposal, so I didn't specifically note they were "existing policy
> text." In general, I'm in favor of reusing text where it makes
> sense. I will say that there probably always is room for
> improvement, and 2050 is now pretty dated so updating the language
> to be more relevant to today's practices & principles is probably
> a step forward.
>
>
>> ---
>>
>> WRT the LIR/ISP I agree, we should adopt whatever we think the
>> standard term should be.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> WRT using number resources instead of IP address space I would
>> have to take a careful look and make sure we are not applying
>> principles that make sense with respect IP addressing to ASNs if
>> they don't make sense. It is not clear to me if you think these
>> changes should be throughout the text, or only in section 0.1.
>
> I probably wasn't totally consistent in my initial comments.
> Since this is "RIR Principles" I believe this policy proposal
> should refer in general to number resources unless the statements
> directly apply only to a subset of Internet number resources.
>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Andrew writes:
>> > I think this section [0.1. Efficient utilization based on need
>> (Conservation)]
>> > should have an explicit reference to the difference
>> > in conservation techniques for IPv4 and IPv6. A proposed
>> sentence might
>> > be something like this... "Conservation goals may vary due to the
>> > technical differences between IP number resources pools, for
>> example the
>> > relatively limited size of the IPv4 address pool causes a
>> desire to see
>> > the number space more highly utilized compared to the vast
>> availability
>> > of IP numbers within the IPv6 address pool."
>>
>> I made a conscious effort to keep this text in section 0.4 for
>> clarity.
>>
>> From the draf policy section 0.4:
>> "For example, efficient utilization becomes a more prominent
>> issue than aggregation as the IPv4 free pool depletes and IPv4
>> resource availability in any transfer market decreases.
>> Conversely, because the IPv6 number space is orders of magnitude
>> larger than the IPv4 number space, the scale tips away from
>> efficient utilization towards hierarchical aggregation for IPv6
>> number resources."
>>
>> Does that text fulfill your suggestion of "Conservation goals may
>> vary due to the technical differences between IP number resources
>> pools, for example the relatively limited size of the IPv4
>> address pool causes a desire to see the number space more highly
>> utilized compared to the vast availability of IP numbers within
>> the IPv6 address pool."
>>
>> Do you have concerns about where this text is located?
>>
>
> I realized later that I inserted similar "IPv4 is different that
> IPv6" into multiple sections, since I thought it applied in unique
> ways to each section. Perhaps for clarity it should only be in
> section 0.4 Stewardship, since this is the section that talks
> about balance between different elements and goals? I'm also OK
> with it being only in one section, but I would want it to somehow
> illuminate specifically that conservation varies based on number
> resource.
>
> Perhaps just add the statement w/o example? "Conservation goals
> may vary due to the technical differences between IP number
> resources pools."
>
> Not a showstopper for me, if it isn't in 0.1.
>
> Building on Bill's comments in his notes, I think there might be
> room toward using the term sustainability in these principles.
> That term is well known in "corporate speak" and might be closer
> to the RIR's goals & principles compared with other words.
>
>> ---
>>
>> Andrew writes:
>> > "Utilization rate of address space will be an important factor in
>> > justifying need for IP number resources. However, utilization rates
>> > will vary due to the technical differences (e.g. IPv4 vs. IPv6)
>> between
>> > number resource pools."
>>
>> Again, I made a conscious effort to keep this text in section 0.4
>> for clarity, and would quote the same text.
>>
>> Does that meet your concern about your proposed text?
>>
>> Do you have concerns about where this text is located?
>
> Perhaps just keeping it all in 0.4 is best.
>
>
>>
>> Should I repeat the paragraph in 0.1, 0.1.1, and 0.4?
>>
> I wouldn't repeat the paragraph.
>
>> ---
>> Andrew writes:
>> >> In order to promote increased usage of Internet number resources,
>> >> resource holders will be required to provide an accounting of
>> >> resources currently held demonstrating efficient utilization.
>> Internet
>> >> number resources are valid as long as the criteria continues to be
>> >> met. The transfer of Internet number resources from one party to
>> >> another must be approved by the regional registries. The party
>> trying
>> >> to obtain the resources must meet the same criteria as if they
>> were
>> >> requesting resources directly from the IR.
>> >>
>> >> All Internet number resource requests are subject to audit and
>> >> verification by any means deemed appropriate by the regional
>> registry.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I suspect the above two paragraphs may be lightning rods against the
>> > policy proposal. May I suggest the following single paragraph
>> in lieu
>> > of the above two paragraphs.
>> >
>> > In order meet the Principles and Goals of the Internet Registry
>> System,
>> > resource holders may be required from time to time to provide an
>> > accounting and current usage of resources currently held. The RIRs
>> > shall set policies to define these accounting mythologies as part of
>> > their community driven policy process.
>>
>> I'm not sure why you think these two paragraphs are lightening rods.
>>
>> RFC-2050 3.3 says:
>> "To promote increased usage of address space, the registries will
>> require an accounting of address space previously assigned to the
>> enterprise, if any."
>
> I believe including text that says orgs must keep records of how
> the use address space is totally appropriate. Record keeping
> doesn't necessarily "proposed increased usage" but does provide
> accountability and transparency which I believe should be one of
> the goals of the registry system.
>
>
>>
>> RFC-2050 3.1 says:
>>
>> "IP addresses are valid as long as the criteria continues to be met."
>
> One might construe this statement to directly invalidate existing
> legacy allocations which would now be in ARIN's policy through
> this policy. Others might be worried that this opens the door
> wider to changing policy to retroactively revoke allocations or
> assignments by changing "criteria". Furthermore, I believe this
> idea is already handled by existing NRPM text and the RSA.
>
>
>> RFC-2050 4.7 says
>>
>>
>> "The transfer of IP addresses from one party to another must be
>> approved by the regional registries. The party trying to obtain
>> the IP address must meet the same criteria as if they were
>> requesting an IP address directly from the IR."
>>
> I believe this "policy" element is best handled in the details
> section of the NRPM rather than the principles section. ARIN's
> policies already define transfers. Having a generic "RIRs shall
> determine IP number resources transfer policies through their
> community drive policy development process." might be a good
> addition to this proposal.
>
>
>> RFC-2050 4.4 says:
>> "All IP address requests are subject to audit and verification
>> by any means deemed appropriate by the regional registry."
>>
> I just remember for multiple years discussing policy 2007-14 &
> others when we put into policy existing auditing and review
> practices. Since ARIN's policies and RSA already talk about audit
> procedures, I also thought this was not necessary. The language
> "by any means deemed appropriate by the regional registry" is a
> wide open door that many I believe won't like. By using text to
> say auditing is done by the community through adopted policy you
> limit an RIR's auditing to specifically what the community wants
> the registry to do.
>
>
>> And there is lots of text about conservation in RFC-2050 and
>> efficient utilization in the NRPM.
>>
>> Can you elaborate on the lightening rod potin?
>>
> See above comments.
>
>> I can only guess you are suggesting that the community wants
>> to depart from the principles in RFC-2050, but think you must
>> mean something else.
>>
>> What am I missing here?
>>
>
> Hopefully my comments above illuminate the concerns I had about
> the text. Basically it comes down to "modernizing" the 2050
> text/principles, and keeping principles in the principles section
> and not putting specific policy in the principles section.
>
>
>>
>> Andrew writes:
>> >> 0.2. Hierarchical aggregation (Routability)
>> >>
>> >> Policies for managing Internet number resources must support
>> >> distribution of globally unique Internet addresses in a
>> hierarchical
>> >> manner, permitting the routing scalability of the addresses.
>> >
>> > Should the RIR's goals be "LISP agnostic"? That is if LISP
>> becomes the
>> > predominant routing methodology in the future, one would not
>> necessarily
>> > expect the goals of the RIRs to change.
>> >
>> > Suggested change to end of first sentence.
>> >
>> > ... permitting the routing scalability of the addresses as
>> required by
>> > the current technical limitations of global routing protocols.
>>
>> I think this change is good even w/o considering LISP.
>> Imagine we have new holographic memory that can hold orders of
>> magnitude more data and decrease read time
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Andrew writes:
>> >
>> >> 0.3. Uniqueness (Registration)
>> >>
>> >> c) to ensure that a provider has exhausted a majority of
>> >> its current CIDR allocation, thereby justifying an additional
>> >> allocation d) to assist in IP allocation studies.
>> >
>> > Suggested revision for "C"
>> >
>> > to allow a LIR to demonstrate and disclose reassignment of IP number
>> > resources to third-parties
>>
>> I think the point is to demonstrate reassignment data to
>> demonstrate efficient utilization.
>> But I also think that point is covered in section 0.1.1, So the
>> rewrite here is ok.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Andrew writes:
>> > Perhaps add a statement specifically about Stewardship
>> >
>> > "Stewardship of IP number resources is the balance of overseeing and
>> > protecting the interests of all Internet stakeholders to further the
>> > development and expansion of the Internet and the Internet
>> Registry System."
>>
>> I do not oppose this text.
>>
>> Andrew also writes...
>> >
>> > justified need as a conflicting goal should be explicitly mentioned.
>> >
>> > "It should be noted that efficient utilization, justified need, and
>> >hierarchical aggregation are often conflicting goals."
>>
>> I'm not sure this parses correctly... This sounds to me like
>> there are
>> conflicts between all three:
>>
>> efficient utilization vs justified need
>> vs hierarchical aggregation.
>>
>> How about:
>> "It should be noted that efficient utilization based on justified
>> need, and
>> hierarchical aggregation are often conflicting goals."
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net
>> <mailto:andrew.dul at quark.net>> wrote:
>>
>> I support adding these guiding principles to the NRPM,
>> furthermore I
>> would support efforts to introduce this policy in all RIR
>> regions to
>> make this a global policy.
>>
>> Comments on the proposed text in-line below.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> On 5/17/2013 9:53 AM, ARIN wrote:
>> > Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4
>> > RIR Principles
>> >
>> > On 16 May 2013 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
>> "ARIN-prop-187
>> > RIR Principles" as a Draft Policy.
>> >
>> > Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4 is below and can be found at:
>> > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2013_4.html
>> >
>> >
>> > ## * ##
>> >
>> >
>> > Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4
>> > RIR Principles
>> >
>> > Date: 17 May 2013
>> >
>> > Problem Statement:
>> >
>> > The original text in RFC 2050 both "describes the registry
>> system for
>> > the distribution of globally unique Internet address space and
>> > registry operations" and provides "rules and guidelines
>> [principles]
>> > governing the distribution of this address space."
>> >
>> > The currently proposed update (RFC2050bis) "provides
>> information about
>> > the current Internet Numbers Registry System used in the
>> distribution
>> > of globally unique Internet Protocol (IP) address space and
>> autonomous
>> > system (AS) numbers" and "provides information about the
>> processes for
>> > further evolution of the Internet Numbers Registry System."
>> >
>> > This means that the guiding principles of stewardship are not
>> > currently being carried forward into the new document. The
>> goals of
>> > Conservation (efficient utilization based on need), Routability
>> > (hierarchical aggregation), and Registration (uniqueness)
>> are as
>> > important, if not more so, now that the transition to IPv6
>> is upon us.
>> > This can be rectified by documenting these principles in
>> RIR policy.
>> >
>> > Policy Statement:
>> >
>> > Section 0: Principles and Goals of the Internet Registry System
>> >
>> > 0.1. Efficient utilization based on need (Conservation)
>> >
>> > Policies for managing Internet number resources must
>> support fair
>> > distribution of globally unique Internet address space
>> according to
>> > the operational needs of the end-users and Internet Service
>> Providers
>> > operating networks using this address space. The registry
>> should
>> > prevent stockpiling in order to maximize the conservation and
>> > efficient utilization of the Internet address space.
>>
>> This section should use the new proposed convention of
>> "LIR/ISP" as
>> being developed in ARIN-2013-5.
>>
>> s/this address space/IP number resources/r
>> s/Internet address space/IP number resources/r
>>
>> I think this section should have an explicit reference to the
>> difference
>> in conservation techniques for IPv4 and IPv6. A proposed
>> sentence might
>> be something like this... "Conservation goals may vary due to the
>> technical differences between IP number resources pools, for
>> example the
>> relatively limited size of the IPv4 address pool causes a
>> desire to see
>> the number space more highly utilized compared to the vast
>> availability
>> of IP numbers within the IPv6 address pool."
>>
>> >
>> > 0.1.1. Documented Justified Need (Needs Based)
>> >
>> > Assignment of Internet number resources is based on documented
>> > operational need. Utilization rate of address space will be
>> a key
>> > factor in number resource assignment. To this end,
>> registrants should
>> > have documented justified need available for each assignment.
>> > Organizations will be assigned resources based on immediate
>> > utilization plus expected utilization.
>>
>> Utilization rate is much more important for IPv4 than IPv6.
>>
>> Suggested revision for "Utilization rate of address space
>> will be a key
>> factor in number resource assignment."
>>
>> "Utilization rate of address space will be an important factor in
>> justifying need for IP number resources. However,
>> utilization rates
>> will vary due to the technical differences (e.g. IPv4 vs.
>> IPv6) between
>> number resource pools."
>>
>> >
>> > In order to promote increased usage of Internet number
>> resources,
>> > resource holders will be required to provide an accounting of
>> > resources currently held demonstrating efficient
>> utilization. Internet
>> > number resources are valid as long as the criteria
>> continues to be
>> > met. The transfer of Internet number resources from one
>> party to
>> > another must be approved by the regional registries. The
>> party trying
>> > to obtain the resources must meet the same criteria as if
>> they were
>> > requesting resources directly from the IR.
>> >
>> > All Internet number resource requests are subject to audit and
>> > verification by any means deemed appropriate by the
>> regional registry.
>> >
>>
>> I suspect the above two paragraphs may be lightning rods
>> against the
>> policy proposal. May I suggest the following single
>> paragraph in lieu
>> of the above two paragraphs.
>>
>> In order meet the Principles and Goals of the Internet
>> Registry System,
>> resource holders may be required from time to time to provide an
>> accounting and current usage of resources currently held.
>> The RIRs
>> shall set policies to define these accounting mythologies as
>> part of
>> their community driven policy process.
>>
>>
>> > 0.2. Hierarchical aggregation (Routability)
>> >
>> > Policies for managing Internet number resources must support
>> > distribution of globally unique Internet addresses in a
>> hierarchical
>> > manner, permitting the routing scalability of the
>> addresses. This
>> > scalability is necessary to ensure proper operation of Internet
>> > routing, although it must be stressed that routability is
>> in no way
>> > guaranteed with the allocation or assignment of IPv4 addresses.
>> >
>>
>> Should the RIR's goals be "LISP agnostic"? That is if LISP
>> becomes the
>> predominant routing methodology in the future, one would not
>> necessarily
>> expect the goals of the RIRs to change.
>>
>> Suggested change to end of first sentence.
>>
>> ... permitting the routing scalability of the addresses as
>> required by
>> the current technical limitations of global routing protocols.
>>
>> > 0.3. Uniqueness (Registration)
>> >
>> > Provision of a public registry documenting Internet number
>> resource
>> > allocation, reallocation, assignment, and reassignment is
>> necessary to:
>> >
>> > a) ensure uniqueness and to to provide operational staff with
>> > information on who is using the number resource b) to provide a
>> > contact in case of operational/security problems (e.g. Law
>> > Enforcement) c) to ensure that a provider has exhausted a
>> majority of
>> > its current CIDR allocation, thereby justifying an additional
>> > allocation d) to assist in IP allocation studies.
>>
>> Suggested revision for "C"
>>
>> to allow a LIR to demonstrate and disclose reassignment of IP
>> number
>> resources to third-parties
>>
>> >
>> > It is imperative that reassignment information be submitted
>> in a
>> > prompt and efficient manner to facilitate database
>> maintenance and
>> > ensure database integrity.
>> >
>> > 0.4. Stewardship
>> >
>> > It should be noted that efficient utilization and hierarchical
>> > aggregation are often conflicting goals. All the above
>> goals may
>> > sometimes be in conflict with the interests of individual
>> end-users or
>> > Internet Service Providers. Care must be taken to ensure
>> balance with
>> > these conflicting goals given the resource availability,
>> relative size
>> > of the resource, and number resource specific technical
>> dynamics, for
>> > each type of number resource. For example, efficient
>> utilization
>> > becomes a more prominent issue than aggregation as the IPv4
>> free pool
>> > depletes and IPv4 resource availability in any transfer market
>> > decreases. Conversely, because the IPv6 number space is
>> orders of
>> > magnitude larger than the IPv4 number space, the scale tips
>> away from
>> > efficient utilization towards hierarchical aggregation for
>> IPv6 number
>> > resources.
>>
>> Perhaps add a statement specifically about Stewardship
>>
>> "Stewardship of IP number resources is the balance of
>> overseeing and
>> protecting the interests of all Internet stakeholders to
>> further the
>> development and expansion of the Internet and the Internet
>> Registry System."
>>
>> Also...
>>
>> justified need as a conflicting goal should be explicitly
>> mentioned.
>>
>> "It should be noted that efficient utilization, justified
>> need, and
>> hierarchical aggregation are often conflicting goals."
>>
>> Use the new LIR/ISP convention instead of "Internet Service
>> Providers"
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Comments:
>> >
>> > a. Timetable for implementation: immediately
>> >
>> > b. I believe that it would be beneficial for IANA to adopt
>> these
>> > principles as well, and encourage the community to consider
>> a global
>> > policy proposal.
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > PPML
>> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net
>> <mailto: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 <mailto:info at arin.net> if you
>> experience any issues.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net
>> <mailto: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 <mailto:info at arin.net> if you
>> experience any issues.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> _______________________________________________________
>> Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com
>> <mailto:jschiller at google.com>|571-266-0006
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> _______________________________________________________
> Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com
> <mailto:jschiller at google.com>|571-266-0006
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130601/fbb7662b/attachment.htm>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list