[arin-ppml] 2600::/12 LOA

[David Huberman]

Whether it's no-op or op, please note that an LOA is actually a "Letter of Agency".  Maybe some networks now call it a Letter of Authority, but it's properly Agency.

David R Huberman
Microsoft Corporation
Senior IT/OPS Program Manager (GFS)

From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Martin Hannigan
Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2014 7:23 PM
To: Heather Schiller
Cc: John Curran; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2600::/12 LOA


It's a no op then. There's no need to mention LOA's at all.

On Tuesday, April 1, 2014, Heather Schiller <heather.skanks at gmail.com<mailto:heather.skanks at gmail.com>> wrote:

The suggested text restricting LOA is:  "ARIN will not issue a Letter of Authority (LOA) to route a research prefix unless the allocation is properly registered in whois."

The text does not specifically restrict ARIN from issuing an LOA altogether, it requires that the resource be registered in whois.  I think the text allows them to issue LOA for research where necessary and legitimate.  It should not impede them from issuing LOA in any other circumstance (though, outside of research, I don't imagine they get many requests for LOA)   Can you foresee a circumstance where it would be appropriate for ARIN to issue an LOA for something *not* registered in whois?   Do you think the current text impedes them from issuing necessary and legitimate LOA's?

--Heather

On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','hannigan at gmail.com');>> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','hannigan at gmail.com');>> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:52 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jcurran at arin.net');>> wrote:
>> On Mar 31, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','hannigan at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 5:00 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jcurran at arin.net');>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> NRPM 11 was designed for parties requesting allocations from ARIN for
>>>> research purposes; not ARIN checking the quality/integrity of new block
>>>> received from IANA.  Given the recent occurance, I believe it is prudent
>>>> for ARIN to utilize NRPM 11 going forward for purposes of this quality
>>>> checking, as it makes visible the organization doing the testing/making
>>>> use of the space, including duration of the activity and research nature,
>>>> as well as reaffirming the expected uniqueness requirement.
>>>
>>> If I understand this correctly, Matthew suggested that an update to
>>> Section 11 would be more useful? If that's the case I agree. It would
>>> require a few, simple, modifications.
>>
>> I think his suggestion to make use of NRPM 11 for this purpose is quite
>> excellent.   It was not process that we used in the past, but shall be
>> done that way going forward.   To the extent that the community wishes
>> to improve NRPM 11 policy text for this purpose of address space testing,
>> that is also welcome.
>>
>>> Why would ARIN ever need to issue an LOA if whatever is distributed is
>>> in the registry? All the LOA responsibilities if even needed at that
>>> point would fall to the registrant.
>>
>> Agreed; that is the major benefit of taking an "NRPM 11" approach to address
>> space testing - ARIN stays focused on being a registry and leaves the use of
>> address space to registrants.  Since registrants are unique for a given address
>> block, we also preempt multiple parties with potentially conflict plans on the
>> use (or routing) of any given portion of address space.
>>
>
>
> Yes, I agree. This is the preferable route.
>
> Best,
>
> -M<

To add to this, it appears that we can condense most of the hand
waving down to a modification in Section 11.4 that adds to the end of
the paragraph "All resource assignments will be registered in the ARIN
WHOIS database and in a manner not conflicting with any other
registrations". Or any other language that would accomplish the same
thing.

We ought not to specifically restrict ARIN from writing an LOA. There
may be a circumstance where it is necessary and fully legitimate.
Admittedly, the instances where it would be needed would be corner
cases, but operators in the AP region, for example, are very strict
and I've had some strange reasons for writing LOA for my own prefixes.
It may also interfere with the encumbrance testing that John
mentioned. I suspect there are also some other tricky authority
questions.

This sounds like a legitimate error to me so this should be enough to
instill a codified message that we want registrations and self
service. Anything else needs more attention.

Best,

-M<
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','info at arin.net');> if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140402/f21f73db/attachment.htm>