[arin-ppml] fee structure

Steven Ryerse SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com
Sat Mar 30 14:42:00 EDT 2013

Unfortunately it is somewhat rare to see comments from legacy holders in this forum even though I know a lot of them at least "listen" to postings here as I've had several make comments to me off-line over time.  I think comments from legacy holders should be aired in this forum as their comments would make these kinds of policy decisions better - even when philosophical issues come up like is happening in the current discussions.  ( I am a small legacy holder of one /24.)  Matthew makes some very valid points below and I think it would be wise to take them into consideration and hopefully action.  In my humble opinion his most important point is that all of these rules are arbitrary.  If you stand back and look at all the quibbling going on about whether someone should be able to get a /40 or a /36 or a /32 or a /whatever - it is easy to see that "community" wishes to limit the assignment of IPv4 and even IPv6 resources for their purposes - whatever they may be.  All of these conversations boil down to how best to LIMIT IP resources!

I've said many times and I'll keep saying it as long as I can breathe that ARIN's mission is to ALLOCATE resources and not to find reasons NOT TO ALLOCATE resources.  IPv4 depletion being the justification be damned!  The big elephant in the room is that legacy holders are afraid of having their resources (and thus their businesses and their missions) impacted by all of the community policy discussions that are about somehow limiting resources or increasing fees or whatever.  Who can blame them for taking the stance that better to be cautious and not sign anything that might give Arin any rights over them - just in case the "community" which is by design unpredictable - decides to do something harmful.  My experience of applying for an IPv6 block in the Small Category and being approved one month, and applying and being denied for the current Minimum Size IPv4 block the next month - provides a real life illustration of just how arbitrary Arin's rules really are.  I should have been approved for both or rejected for both!  John said in his email to David Farmer yesterday "ARIN is here to serve the community, so the normal response to any request should be "Yes", unless there a clear reason (example, potential impacts to other parties) that something should be prohibited by policy".  Obviously since I was approved for IPv6 and denied for IPv4, Arin found a reason to say "No" to me rather than "Yes" for IPv4 because of some arbitrary policy stemming from IPv4 depletion concerns.  As I said IPv4 depletion be damned as it isn't Arin's Mission to NOT ALLOCATE even the Minimum block to a party with need.  

There should be NO LIMITS placed by Arin other than a simple justification of the size of the requested block needed as we all obviously all don't need a /8. Then Arin should ALLOCATE for a reasonable cost that covers Arin's bills.  For the record I have no problem paying a to make sure Arin's reasonable bills are paid.  

I'm sure I will get the obligatory email response from John about this email (which I do think is good) but then my comments again will be ignored by this community - and unfortunately all of the legacy holders will continue to be cautious and stay away as long as they can.  I applaud Mathew's attempt to contribute here and the sanity he is trying to provide!

-1  This member is against the current changes as proposed because at least in part it further restricts ALLOCATION of resources which I believe to be against Arin's Mission.  

Steven L Ryerse
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax

℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
                     Conquering Complex Networks℠

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Matthew Kaufman
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 12:48 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] fee structure

On 3/29/2013 9:15 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2013, at 12:05 PM, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com>
>   wrote:
>> OK, so ARIN has been accused of having a poll tax mentality, lol.
>> Allow me to throw in the fact that legacy holders like me who did not sign the LRSA do not have a vote, even though we have resources.
>> Resources over which ARIN asserts authority.
>> So we have a form of "taxation without representation" which I call "authority without representation".
>> Why doesn't ARIN stick to asserting policy authority over those with which it has a contract and who are allowed to vote?
>> Or how about letting legacy resource holders vote without a contract with ARIN ?
>> I consider myself both "well informed" and "interested in participating" but by either measure my vote is precluded unless and until I sign a contract with ARIN legally granting them the authority they already assert.  Heck I practically wrote the ARIN 8.3 section but couldn't even vote on it.
> Mike -
>    While ARIN does encourage legacy address holders to enter into a
>    registration service agreement, you are not required to do so and
>    in either case, it does not affect ARIN's authority to operate the
>    registry in accordance with the policy developed by the community
>    in this region (and a process which you do have the ability to
>    participate in in either case.)

Sure, but that's not the registry that (at least some) legacy resource holders want to be listed in. There is no reason why legacy holders couldn't have been listed in a separate registry with separate governance, just as the other regions are separate from ARIN's registry.

By listing them in ARIN's registry and enforcing ARIN's policies with regard to (for instance) transfers (which are really just database updates in said registry) ARIN took what some of us feel is authority over those entries that it did not have, and yet because there is no legacy database in which to list that the RIRs would recognize as far as uniqueness goes, we're all sorta stuck with the situation.

Personally, I'd be more than happy to have my resource listings (all of them legacy) removed from the ARIN registry, as long as all of the RIRs can promise to not allocate the same numbers to someone else. Then I could publish my own listing of who is using those resources, or band together with other legacy holders to do so in a coordinated fashion, and not be bound by ARIN policy when I decide to change those listings.

Right now, I don't have a contract with ARIN and yet ARIN insists on listing my resources there and enforcing what are essentially arbitrary rules over what changes I can make to those entries... and sure, it is ARIN's database and they have that right, but the fact that so many others reference that database as the "official" source of information does cause pain for me.

Matthew Kaufman

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.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list