[arin-ppml] ARIN-2014-4

Rudolph Daniel rudi.daniel at gmail.com
Thu Feb 6 15:41:00 EST 2014


I am in support of draft 2014-4.

Rudi Daniel
(information technologist)
784 430 9235
On Feb 6, 2014 4:11 PM, <arin-ppml-request at arin.net> wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
>         arin-ppml at arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         arin-ppml-request at arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         arin-ppml-owner at arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro Allocation
>       Conservation Update (John Springer)
>    2. Re: support for 2014-1 (out of region use) (David Huberman)
>    3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4: REMOVE 4.2.5 WEB HOSTING POLICY
>       (John Springer)
>    4. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro Allocation
>       Conservation Update (Michael Still)
>    5. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4: REMOVE 4.2.5 WEB HOSTING POLICY
>       (John Springer)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 09:26:35 -0800 (PST)
> From: John Springer <springer at inlandnet.com>
> To: David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu>
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro
>         Allocation Conservation Update
> Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1402060904340.72878 at mail.inlandnet.com>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> Comments inline.
>
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, David Farmer wrote:
>
> > On 2/5/14, 17:36 , Andrew Dul wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> This draft policy will be discussed next week at the nanog PPC, in
> >> addition we welcome feedback on this draft on PPML.  Specifically if you
> >> could comment on the following two points it would be appreciated.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Andrew
> >>
> >>
> >> Does the community support raising the minimum requirement for IXPs from
> >> 2 to 3?
> >
> > I support the change from a two participants to a three participant
> standard
> > to qualify as an Internet Exchange Point (IXP).
> >
> > To date the risk created by allowing the minimum of two participates for
> an
> > IXP has been extremely low, as the motivation for abuse was also
> extremely
> > low.  However, as we proceed through run-out of the general IPv4 free
> pool
> > the motivations for abuse will increase dramatically. Raising the
> standard to
> > three participants to qualify as an IXP seems like a prudent precaution
> to
> > ensure that the reservation for IXPs, and other critical infrastructure
> that
> > was made in ARIN-2011-4, is protected to ensure availability of
> resources for
> > legitimate IXPs in the future.
> >
> > There will be some impact on the start-up of some IXPs, this is
> unfortunate.
> > However, the three participant standard is not completely unreasonable,
> given
> > the potential for increased abuse of the two participant standard.
>
> The Open-IX community has had some discussions of this very subject.
> Perhaps the author or other members of the Open-IX Board can summarize on
> this specific matter. I believe the Open-IX community has settled on 3 as
> the way forward. I am OK with that.
>
> >> Does the community believe that additional clarity is needed to define
> >> if an IXP uses the end-user or ISP fee schedule?
> >
> > I believe both the old language and the new language regarding this issue
> > should be stricken, this is an ARIN business issue, not a policy issue.
>  I
> > have no problem with such a recommendation being included in the comments
> > section, outside the policy text itself.  I support the general concept
> it
> > represents, but it is just not a policy issue in my opinion.
>
> many pluses to the paragraph immediately preceeding. I feel that this is a
> direct modification of the fee structure via policy, and therefore do not
> support the draft policy as written.
>
> John Springer
>
>
> > Thanks.
> >
> > --
> > ================================================
> > David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
> > Office of Information Technology
> > University of Minnesota
> > 2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
> > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
> > ================================================
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > 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:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 18:40:55 +0000
> From: David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com>
> To: "ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)" <ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] support for 2014-1 (out of region use)
> Message-ID:
>         <
> 0a573e7e5ec24a34bba99c20501e6e5f at DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Thank you, Milton, for bringing this thread up.
>
> I've reviewed 2014-1 and thought about it carefully.  I am against this
> proposal.  I'll try and organize my thoughts, though they come from a few
> different angles.
>
> Text: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_1.html
>
> 1) I'm against the specific 2014-1 language because I think it is almost
> entirely no-op.
>
> In general, I want NRPM to be brief, concise, and prescriptive.  "You
> qualify by doing X.  You don't qualify because of Y. You must show A, B,
> C."  We need less fluffy text in NRPM so that it is a more accessible and
> polished Policy document, imho.  In this case, only paragraph X.1 is
> operational.  It formally lays out just a few steps that ARIN already has
> available to it.  But these aren't the only tools ARIN has to verify
> request data, and I'm not convinced that having these specific bullet
> points in Policy helps the community or ARIN staff in any meaningful way.
>
> Put more straight forwardly:  ARIN staff already have these mechanisms
> available to them, and this policy text will not change the request process
> materially.
>
> 2) The PPML community has reviewed similar proposals twice, in my
> recollection.   There was a draft limiting out-of-region use discussed in
> Philadelphia. The community vocally was against it, and clearly told ARIN
> staff to keep doing what they were already doing. There was also a draft
> limiting out-of-region use discussed in Phoenix.  The community was again
> vocally against it, and clearly told the ARIN staff that this isn't a
> policy area they wish to discuss.
>
> 3) At the same time, the staff are continuing to report that there are
> significant problems from out-of-region requestors abusing the policies.
>  If you disagree with the PPML community (and I do - I think this is a
> serious issue that cries for Policy changes), then we need to draft text
> that significantly and materially helps ARIN staff fight fraud from
> out-of-region requestors.
>
> With regards,
> David
>
> 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 Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2014 6:42 AM
> To: ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)
> Subject: [arin-ppml] support for 2014-1 (out of region use)
>
> Draft policy 2014-1 attempts to solve a problem left over from last year.
> During 2013 there was a round of policy proposals attempting to tie ARIN
> allocations more closely to usage in the region. They failed to gain
> consensus because they would have interfered with trans-regional networks
> in undesirable ways. Yet, current policy is still ambiguous on the issue of
> out of region use of ARIN registered resources. This proposal attempts to
> clear up that ambiguity in a way that avoids harmful effects on
> transnational or trans-regional network operators. The gist of the idea is
> to allow out of region use for organizations eligible for ARIN resources,
> but also provide policy authorization for ARIN to charge fees to verify the
> identity or usage of applicants outside the region. I think this approach
> provides the most flexibility while addressing the only real problems that
> have been cited for out of region use (verification issues).
>
> You can see the proposal in full here:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_1.html
> Appreciate reading your comments about this.
>
>
> Milton L Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> Internet Governance Project
> http://internetgovernance.org
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 11:27:59 -0800 (PST)
> From: John Springer <springer at inlandnet.com>
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4: REMOVE 4.2.5 WEB
>         HOSTING POLICY
> Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1402060932140.72878 at mail.inlandnet.com>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Greetings PPML readers,
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4: REMOVE 4.2.5 WEB HOSTING POLICY will be
> discussed next week during the Public Policy Consultation at NANOG 60 in
> Atlanta. This Consultation will take place on Tuesday from 9:30AM to
> 13:00PM in the Augusta Room.
>
> Comments are invited and welcome both here and there. The text of
> the Draft Policy is below my comments, which follow.
>
> Comments (and questions) from me:
>
> Firstly, do you support or oppose Draft Policy 2014-4?
>
> This Draft Policy is functionally identical to the last bullet item of
> Draft Policy 2013-7 - NRPM 4 (IPv4) policy cleanup, which also will be
> presented next week. The author of this Draft Policy is aware of this
> overlap and "would like it submitted and considered entirely separately".
> One aspect of this situation is that the precursors of 2013-7 have
> attracted energetic comment. Adoption of 2014-4 separately would decouple
> this issue (2014-4) from the other parts of 2013-7 and its adoption or
> rejection. What do you think?
>
> While the policy text of both proposals is functionally identical ("Remove
> section 4.2.5 Web Hosting Policy" in 2013-7 and "Remove section 4.2.5" in
> 2014-4), the problem statements differ. 2013-7 says, "Since ARIN received
> its last /8, by IANA implementing section 10.4.2.2, this is now a
> distinction without a difference." 2014-4 says "Section 4.2.5 is
> technology-specific language that is not current with modern network
> operation needs and practices. We should remove it to make NRPM clearer."
> Both appear to be correct and sufficient. Which do you prefer and why? If
> neither, and you support 2014-4, can you please suggest text? Since both
> are Draft Policy, an opportunity exists for the AC to amend the problem
> statements so the two are congruent.
>
> It has been suggested that this Draft Policy is without operational
> impact, being purely a house cleaning matter. Do you agree? If not, what
> operational relevance do you see?
>
> Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
>
> John Springer
>
> From: ARIN (info at arin.net)
> Date: Wed Jan 29 10:26:51 EST 2014
>
> On 24 January 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
> "ARIN-prop-196 Remove 4.2.5 Web Hosting Policy" as a Draft Policy.
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4 is below and can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_4.html
>
> You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft
> Policy 2014-4 on the Public Policy Mailing List.
>
> The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance
> of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource
> Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are:
>
>    * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
>    * Technically Sound
>    * Supported by the Community
>
> The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>
> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
>
> Regards,
>
> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
> ## * ##
>
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4
> Remove 4.2.5 Web Hosting Policy
>
> Date: 29 January 2014
>
> Problem Statement:
>
> Section 4.2.5 is technology-specific language that is not current with
> modern network operation needs and practices. We should remove it to
> make NRPM clearer.
>
> Policy statement:
>
> Remove section 4.2.5.
>
> Comments:
> a.Timetable for implementation: Immediate
> b.Anything else:
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:45:12 -0500
> From: Michael Still <stillwaxin at gmail.com>
> To: John Springer <springer at inlandnet.com>
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro
>         Allocation Conservation Update
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAPDTRigg96qkZAVPTM-rnjuoyoXN27qWQzijVUoeAGF+wZSyKQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:26 PM, John Springer <springer at inlandnet.com>
> wrote:
> > Comments inline.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, David Farmer wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/5/14, 17:36 , Andrew Dul wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> This draft policy will be discussed next week at the nanog PPC, in
> >>> addition we welcome feedback on this draft on PPML.  Specifically if
> you
> >>> could comment on the following two points it would be appreciated.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Andrew
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Does the community support raising the minimum requirement for IXPs
> from
> >>> 2 to 3?
> >>
> >>
> >> I support the change from a two participants to a three participant
> >> standard to qualify as an Internet Exchange Point (IXP).
> >>
> >> To date the risk created by allowing the minimum of two participates for
> >> an IXP has been extremely low, as the motivation for abuse was also
> >> extremely low.  However, as we proceed through run-out of the general
> IPv4
> >> free pool the motivations for abuse will increase dramatically. Raising
> the
> >> standard to three participants to qualify as an IXP seems like a prudent
> >> precaution to ensure that the reservation for IXPs, and other critical
> >> infrastructure that was made in ARIN-2011-4, is protected to ensure
> >> availability of resources for legitimate IXPs in the future.
> >>
> >> There will be some impact on the start-up of some IXPs, this is
> >> unfortunate. However, the three participant standard is not completely
> >> unreasonable, given the potential for increased abuse of the two
> participant
> >> standard.
> >
> >
> > The Open-IX community has had some discussions of this very subject.
> Perhaps
> > the author or other members of the Open-IX Board can summarize on this
> > specific matter. I believe the Open-IX community has settled on 3 as the
> way
> > forward. I am OK with that.
> >
> >
> >>> Does the community believe that additional clarity is needed to define
> >>> if an IXP uses the end-user or ISP fee schedule?
> >>
> >>
> >> I believe both the old language and the new language regarding this
> issue
> >> should be stricken, this is an ARIN business issue, not a policy issue.
>  I
> >> have no problem with such a recommendation being included in the
> comments
> >> section, outside the policy text itself.  I support the general concept
> it
> >> represents, but it is just not a policy issue in my opinion.
> >
> >
> > many pluses to the paragraph immediately preceeding. I feel that this is
> a
> > direct modification of the fee structure via policy, and therefore do not
> > support the draft policy as written.
> >
> > John Springer
> >
>
> Not really responding to you, you just happened to be the last in the
> thread..
>
> Perhaps we should look at tackling some of our dwindling number
> resources issues in a different perspective.  Have we considered
> updating the policy to only issue prefix sizes which are reasonable in
> the first place?  What makes just setting up an IXP be enough to issue
> a /24?  What if this IXP is in a market in which there will never be
> more than 126 participants?  Or worse much less?  Should these IXPs be
> given /24s when a much smaller allocation may be all that's needed?
> Or should every IXP have to start small and as their participation
> increases they be issued new space to move into?
>
> I believe the argument for global prefix visibility of IXP space has
> been largely discussed and consensus is that this space does not and
> should not be globally reachable voiding any perceived need for a /24
> I believe.
>
> >
> >
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> --
> >> ================================================
> >> David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
> >> Office of Information Technology
> >> University of Minnesota
> >> 2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
> >> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
> >> ================================================
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> PPML
> >> 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:
> >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> >> Please contact 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).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>
>
> --
> [stillwaxin at gmail.com ~]$ cat .signature
> cat: .signature: No such file or directory
> [stillwaxin at gmail.com ~]$
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 12:08:30 -0800 (PST)
> From: John Springer <springer at inlandnet.com>
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4: REMOVE 4.2.5 WEB
>         HOSTING POLICY
> Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1402061206110.72878 at mail.inlandnet.com>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> Correction:
>
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, John Springer wrote:
>
> > Greetings PPML readers,
> >
> > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4: REMOVE 4.2.5 WEB HOSTING POLICY will be
> discussed
> > next week during the Public Policy Consultation at NANOG 60 in Atlanta.
> This
> > Consultation will take place on Tuesday from 9:30AM to 13:00PM in the
> Augusta
> > Room.
> >
> > Comments are invited and welcome both here and there. The text of the
> Draft
> > Policy is below my comments, which follow.
> >
> > Comments (and questions) from me:
> >
> > Firstly, do you support or oppose Draft Policy 2014-4?
> >
> > This Draft Policy is functionally identical to the last bullet item of
> Draft
> > Policy 2013-7 - NRPM 4 (IPv4) policy cleanup, which also will be
> presented
> > next week. The author of this Draft Policy is aware of this overlap and
> > "would like it submitted and considered entirely separately". One aspect
> of
> > this situation is that the precursors of 2013-7 have attracted energetic
> > comment. Adoption of 2014-4 separately would decouple this issue (2014-4)
> > from the other parts of 2013-7 and its adoption or rejection. What do you
> > think?
> >
> > While the policy text of both proposals is functionally identical
> ("Remove
> > section 4.2.5 Web Hosting Policy" in 2013-7 and "Remove section 4.2.5" in
> > 2014-4), the problem statements differ. 2013-7 says, "Since ARIN
> received its
> > last /8, by IANA implementing section 10.4.2.2, this is now a distinction
> > without a difference."
>
> The correct problem statement for 2013-7 is "This information-gathering
> policy has been in place for a decade now with no resulting policy
> changes, and is no longer needed in light of IPv4 runout."
>
> > 2014-4 says "Section 4.2.5 is technology-specific
> > language that is not current with modern network operation needs and
> > practices. We should remove it to make NRPM clearer." Both appear to be
> > correct and sufficient. Which do you prefer and why? If neither, and you
> > support 2014-4, can you please suggest text? Since both are Draft
> Policy, an
> > opportunity exists for the AC to amend the problem statements so the two
> are
> > congruent.
> >
> > It has been suggested that this Draft Policy is without operational
> impact,
> > being purely a house cleaning matter. Do you agree? If not, what
> operational
> > relevance do you see?
> >
> > Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
> >
> > John Springer
> >
> > From: ARIN (info at arin.net)
> > Date: Wed Jan 29 10:26:51 EST 2014
> >
> > On 24 January 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
> > "ARIN-prop-196 Remove 4.2.5 Web Hosting Policy" as a Draft Policy.
> >
> > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4 is below and can be found at:
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_4.html
> >
> > You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft
> > Policy 2014-4 on the Public Policy Mailing List.
> >
> > The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance
> > of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource
> > Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are:
> >
> >  * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
> >  * Technically Sound
> >  * Supported by the Community
> >
> > The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at:
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
> >
> > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Communications and Member Services
> > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> >
> >
> > ## * ##
> >
> >
> > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4
> > Remove 4.2.5 Web Hosting Policy
> >
> > Date: 29 January 2014
> >
> > Problem Statement:
> >
> > Section 4.2.5 is technology-specific language that is not current with
> > modern network operation needs and practices. We should remove it to
> > make NRPM clearer.
> >
> > Policy statement:
> >
> > Remove section 4.2.5.
> >
> > Comments:
> > a.Timetable for implementation: Immediate
> > b.Anything else:
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > 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:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML mailing list
> ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>
> End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 104, Issue 3
> *****************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140206/2733ac7e/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list