[arin-ppml] 2600::/12 LOA

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Tue Apr 1 22:23:06 EDT 2014


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>
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/20140401/fcee5bf2/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list