[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2014-7
Rudolph Daniel
rudi.daniel at gmail.com
Fri Jan 31 08:05:13 EST 2014
Two networks connecting are not necessarily private peers.
In the small Caribbean states, although there seems to be policy to
implement IXP s, many are still not getting the buy in from existing ISP s
...so it is possible that an IXP could get off the ground with 2 and once
up and running, others will join in.
That could be a strategy.
So raising the bar to three minimum may well make it more difficult for
them to get past the starting line. In my locale, we have 2 ISP s. And a
planned IXP.
My argument is that once we have an IXP, there is more of a likely hood
that it will attract new providers, be it specialists like health or
education for example.
And since the number of networks connecting is not the only criteria for
designating an IXP, my opinion is to leave it at two.
Rudi Daniel
(information technologist)
784 430 9235
On Jan 30, 2014 1:19 PM, <arin-ppml-request at arin.net> wrote:
> [image: Boxbe] <https://www.boxbe.com/overview> This message is eligible
> for Automatic Cleanup! (arin-ppml-request at arin.net) Add cleanup rule<https://www.boxbe.com/popup?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.boxbe.com%2Fcleanup%3Ftoken%3D%252B2Hpz4gnu%252FejMZuSFdv87bmQBOtxEDS3b9X7gpLdwNWGg8XULREXlQT0aw%252Bg4wvXefzxDae7hDB3aavY%252Fl%252BPimWlX2yI0NQXtOB1j063pJn2Hz8TkS%252BrWybaclKxn%252FQH2U8LmZNyew4wxDdpjPd28A%253D%253D%26key%3DpptuT0%252Fde44tGc8pS94PFdMgJuo2iA0z7G0HcQ%252BSG2c%253D&tc_serial=16233316801&tc_rand=178071754&utm_source=stf&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADD&utm_content=001>| More
> info<http://blog.boxbe.com/general/boxbe-automatic-cleanup?tc_serial=16233316801&tc_rand=178071754&utm_source=stf&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADD&utm_content=001>
>
> 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. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro Allocation
> Conservation Update (ARIN)
> 2. Re: NRPM Policies 4.6 and 4.7 Suspended by ARIN Board (ARIN)
> 3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-5: Remove 7.2 Lame Delegations
> (William Herrin)
> 4. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-2: Improving 8.4 Anti-Flip
> Language (William Herrin)
> 5. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-2: Improving 8.4 Anti-Flip
> Language (Bill Darte)
> 6. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-2: Improving 8.4 Anti-Flip
> Language (William Herrin)
> 7. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-2: Improving 8.4 Anti-Flip
> Language (David Huberman)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 10:27:44 -0500
> From: ARIN <info at arin.net>
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro
> Allocation Conservation Update
> Message-ID: <52E91DF0.9040909 at arin.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> On 24 January 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
> "ARIN-prop-200 Section 4.4 Micro Allocation Conservation Update" as a
> Draft Policy.
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7 is below and can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_7.html
>
> You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft
> Policy 2014-7 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-2014-7
> Section 4.4 Micro Allocation Conservation Update
>
> Date: 29 January 2014
>
> Problem Statement:
>
> Two networks interconnecting are private peers. Three could be
> considered an IXP. In light of exhaustion and the low reserve available
> to CI _and_ the significant growth of IXP's in North America, it is
> prudent to insure that there are minimum criteria that are sensible in
> order to not waste address space on an activity that is delineated by a
> minimum allocation vs. a /30. The barrier to entry remains low regardless.
>
> Policy statement:
>
> Change the following paragraph in Section 4.4 from:
>
> Exchange point operators must provide justification for the allocation,
> including: connection policy, location, other participants (minimum of
> two total), ASN, and contact information. ISPs and other organizations
> receiving these micro-allocations will be charged under the ISP fee
> schedule, while end-users will be charged under the fee schedule for
> end-users. This policy does not preclude exchange point operators from
> requesting address space under other policies.
>
> To:
>
> Exchange point operators must provide justification for the allocation,
> including: connection policy, location, other participants (minimum of
> three total), ASN, and contact information. IXP's formed as non profits
> will be considered end user organizations. All others will be considered
> ISPs.
>
> Comments:
> a.Timetable for implementation:
> b.Anything else:
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 11:04:38 -0500
> From: ARIN <info at arin.net>
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] NRPM Policies 4.6 and 4.7 Suspended by ARIN
> Board
> Message-ID: <52E92696.4000709 at arin.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> > Per the PDP, the ARIN Advisory Council will review this matter and make a
> > recommendation to the Board. The AC's recommendation will be posted
> to the
> > Public Policy Mailing List for discussion.
>
> The ARIN Advisory Council recommended the following:
>
> "The Advisory Council supports the action of the Board to suspend
> sections 4.6 and 4.7 of the NRPM. The AC recommends the suspension
> remain in place while we work with the community on an appropriate
> policy response. To initiate community discussion, the AC submitted a
> proposal to remove Sections 4.6 and 4.7. The AC encourages input from
> the community on this matter. If anyone believes that aspects of the
> amnesty or aggregation policy should be retained, they are encouraged to
> post their comments and recommendations to the PPML.?
>
> Regards,
>
> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
> On 1/21/14 3:08 PM, ARIN wrote:
> > On 6 January 2014 the ARIN Board of Trustees, in accordance with the
> > ARIN Policy
> > Development Process (Part Two, Section 10.2 - Policy Suspension)
> suspended
> > Number Resource Policy Manual sections (NRPM) "4.6 Amnesty and
> Aggregation
> > Requests" and "4.7 Aggregation Requests".
> >
> > From the Board's minutes: "The ARIN Board of Trustees suspends Sections
> > 4.6 and
> > 4.7 of the Number Resource Policy Manual, and refers the matter to the
> ARIN
> > Advisory Council per the Policy Development Process."
> >
> > Per the PDP, the ARIN Advisory Council will review this matter and make a
> > recommendation to the Board. The AC's recommendation will be posted to
> the
> > Public Policy Mailing List for discussion.
> >
> > The suspensions have been marked with notes from the editor in a new
> > version of
> > the policy manual- NRPM version 2014.2, dated 21 January 2014,
> > supersedes the
> > previous version.
> >
> > Board minutes are available at: https://www.arin.net/about_us/bot/
> >
> > The ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual is available at:
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html
> >
> > The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at:
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Communications and Member Services
> > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 19:18:33 -0500
> From: William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-5: Remove 7.2 Lame
> Delegations
> Message-ID:
> <CAP-guGXtXJ=wCi1PO2gxDapeCX1srLEm-L6=UYpk=
> fb_5S_SmQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:27 AM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
> > On 24 January 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-197
> > Remove 7.2 Lame Delegations" as a Draft Policy.
> >
> > ARIN will actively identify lame DNS name server(s) for reverse address
> > delegations associated with address blocks allocated, assigned or
> > administered by ARIN. Upon identification of a lame delegation, ARIN
> shall
> > attempt to contact the POC for that resource and resolve the issue. If,
> > following due diligence, ARIN is unable to resolve the lame delegation,
> ARIN
> > will update the Whois database records resulting in the removal of lame
> > servers.
>
> Howdy,
>
> Two decades of software improvements later, is there a *technical*
> need for ARIN to take any action at all with respect to lame
> delegations? Any stable DNS resolver has to deal with routine lame
> delegations in the forward DNS anyway.
>
> On a related note, does anyone actually make use of section 7.1,
> allowing an organization with less than a /16 to have ARIN handle all
> its RDNS rather than delegating it? How does that work? What are the
> mechanics involved in a registrant having ARIN set and change RDNS PTR
> records for him?
>
> I'm wondering if there's a good reason to keep any part of section 7 at
> all.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 19:06:33 -0500
> From: William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
> To: ARIN <info at arin.net>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-2: Improving 8.4
> Anti-Flip Language
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAP-guGXmmkEHeorSO7hnDN9oO+RggTFsB7qO5KUjVjD0wOMDqQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:26 AM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
> > On 24 January 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-194
> > Improving 8.4 Anti-Flip Language" as a Draft Policy.
> >
> > Modify 8.4:
> > Source entities within the ARIN region must not have received a transfer,
> > allocation, or assignment of IPv4 number resources from ARIN for the 12
> > months prior to the approval of a transfer request. This restriction does
> > not include M&A transfers. Restrictions related to recent receipt of
> blocks
> > shall not apply to inter-RIR transfers within the same organization and
> its
> > subsidiaries.
>
> Howdy.
>
> "and its subsidiaries" defeats the anti-flipping provision. Creating
> and then selling a "subsidiary" has a trivial cost. Restrict it to
> "same organization" and you won't have harmed things any more than
> having inter-rir transfers at all harms things.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
>
> --
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 06:11:27 -0600
> From: Bill Darte <billdarte at gmail.com>
> To: William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-2: Improving 8.4
> Anti-Flip Language
> Message-ID:
> <CAMApp35z+Cc+w+Kxt0P7XDDhb0qavy4nO=
> jVCWh-1ue4P0rFZw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> Thanks for your input on this issue. We saw the same issue when adding the
> clause, but did so anyway to get insight from the community. Our reasoning
> was to get feedback on (at least) two issues....
> ...first, the issue of organizational structure. What if an organization
> wishes to transfer to an 'existing' subsidiary....is that the same
> organization? Is it possible to allow subsidiary transfer, but bound it
> with a time constraint....'existing for the past XX months or years?
> ...and, is this issue 'really' of concern given the late date relative to
> ARIN free-pool run out?
>
> Thanks again,
> bd
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 6:06 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:26 AM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
> > > On 24 January 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
> "ARIN-prop-194
> > > Improving 8.4 Anti-Flip Language" as a Draft Policy.
> > >
> > > Modify 8.4:
> > > Source entities within the ARIN region must not have received a
> transfer,
> > > allocation, or assignment of IPv4 number resources from ARIN for the 12
> > > months prior to the approval of a transfer request. This restriction
> does
> > > not include M&A transfers. Restrictions related to recent receipt of
> > blocks
> > > shall not apply to inter-RIR transfers within the same organization and
> > its
> > > subsidiaries.
> >
> > Howdy.
> >
> > "and its subsidiaries" defeats the anti-flipping provision. Creating
> > and then selling a "subsidiary" has a trivial cost. Restrict it to
> > "same organization" and you won't have harmed things any more than
> > having inter-rir transfers at all harms things.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bill Herrin
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
> > 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140130/0bca43e0/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 11:43:51 -0500
> From: William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
> To: Bill Darte <billdarte at gmail.com>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-2: Improving 8.4
> Anti-Flip Language
> Message-ID:
> <CAP-guGWsjfuqXi77yUmiSWDtiLSNnZe2L3w6LVjcb9u=
> xjFUXQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 7:11 AM, Bill Darte <billdarte at gmail.com> wrote:
> > What if an organization
> > wishes to transfer to an 'existing' subsidiary....is that the same
> > organization?
>
> Howdy,
>
> For consistency's sake with the rest of the NRPM, it is not the same
> organization.
>
>
> > ...and, is this issue 'really' of concern given the late date relative to
> > ARIN free-pool run out?
>
> I'd find that a reasonable argument for eliminating the anti-flipping
> provisions entirely. As an argument for creating unfairness in the
> anti-flipping provisions, and worse: unfairness biased against the
> domestic folks it is ARIN's core mission to serve, I find that
> argument unpersuasive.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
>
>
> --
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:13:48 +0000
> From: David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com>
> To: 'William Herrin' <bill at herrin.us>, Bill Darte
> <billdarte at gmail.com>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-2: Improving 8.4
> Anti-Flip Language
> Message-ID:
> <
> 9bcf457a549645d48c1c4f9fb158dc8f at DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> William,
>
> Thanks for your thoughts.
>
> I proposed the policy for two reasons:
>
> 1) There are unanticipated consequences of the anti-flip language that
> make it impossible for companies to both be truthful with ARIN and to move
> blocks where they need to be. Think of a large international network which
> sources addresses from ARIN for its backbone. When it needs to move a
> block to APNIC-region registries due to both technical and geo-location
> reasons, it is unable to do so if it received space from ARIN within the
> last 12 months. The "subsidiaries" part is due to legal realities: the
> holding company in APNIC region is legally distinct from the HQ
> organization. Again, the policy motivates lying to ARIN to get things
> done, and that's a lose-lose.
>
> 2) Anti-flipping language is obsolete with ARIN exhausted of large blocks,
> so when thinking about the policy, I originally wanted to just remove it.
> But the PPML reality is I didn't think people would go for it, so to
> concentrate on the actual problem I wanted solved, I proposed an
> intermediate step.
>
> I hope you will support the revised language, as it is intended to allow
> network operators to properly and honestly manage their registrations.
>
> /david
>
> David R Huberman
> Microsoft Corporation
> Senior IT/OPS Program Manager (GFS)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of William Herrin
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 8:44 AM
> To: Bill Darte
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-2: Improving 8.4 Anti-Flip
> Language
>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 7:11 AM, Bill Darte <billdarte at gmail.com> wrote:
> > What if an organization
> > wishes to transfer to an 'existing' subsidiary....is that the same
> > organization?
>
> Howdy,
>
> For consistency's sake with the rest of the NRPM, it is not the same
> organization.
>
>
> > ...and, is this issue 'really' of concern given the late date relative
> > to ARIN free-pool run out?
>
> I'd find that a reasonable argument for eliminating the anti-flipping
> provisions entirely. As an argument for creating unfairness in the
> anti-flipping provisions, and worse: unfairness biased against the domestic
> folks it is ARIN's core mission to serve, I find that argument unpersuasive.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
>
>
> --
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls
> Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________
> 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 103, Issue 15
> ******************************************
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140131/e77417b8/attachment.htm>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list