[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-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list