[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-7

Fri Aug 21 10:50:17 EDT 2015

Generally against proposal as read.
IMO any relaxation is in favor of those who when given an inch will
generally take a mile or two and out of region use simply magnifies
possibilities .
RD
On Aug 20, 2015 7:10 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: Thoughts on 2015-7 (Martin Hannigan)
>    2. Re: Thoughts on 2015-7 (Matthew Kaufman)
>    3. Re: Thoughts on 2015-7 (khatfield at socllc.net)
>    4. Re: Thoughts on 2015-7 (Owen DeLong)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 18:50:58 -0400
> From: Martin  Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com>
> To: "ppml at arin.net" <ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7
> Message-ID: <8BE49F13-E5E9-4939-94F7-A27CAFBD89F9 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=us-ascii
>
>
>
> I support this. The attestation, at least for US public companies, is not
> taken lightly. Its toothless, but not meaningless even if only  symbolic.
>
> Best,
>
> -M<
>
> > On Aug 20, 2015, at 18:32, Richard J. Letts <rjletts at uw.edu> wrote:
> >
> > I'm unconvinced; the new policy leaves it too open for enabling
> speculation.
> >
> > Richard Letts
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> >> Behalf Of Rob Seastrom
> >> Sent: 20 August 2015 12:46 PM
> >> To: ppml at arin.net
> >> Subject: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear Colleagues,
> >>
> >> It's been almost two months since ARIN 2015-7 was submitted.  Anyone
> have
> >> thoughts on "Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4
> >> transfers"?
> >>
> >> The AC would love your input.
> >>
> >> Draft policy text follows:
> >>
> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7
> >> Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers
> >>
> >> Date: 23 June 2015
> >>
> >> Problem statement:
> >>
> >> ARIN transfer policy currently inherits all its demonstrated need
> >> requirements for IPv4 transfers from NRPM sections 4. Because that
> section
> >> was written primarily to deal with free pool allocations, it is much
> more
> >> complicated than is really necessary for transfers. In practice, ARIN
> >> staff applies much more lenient needs assessment to section 8 IPv4
> >> transfer requests than to free pool requests, as 24-month needs are much
> >> more difficult to assess to the same level of detail.
> >>
> >> This proposal seeks to dramatically simplify the needs assessment
> process
> >> for 8.3 transfers, while still allowing organizations with corner-case
> >> requirements to apply under existing policy if necessary.
> >>
> >> Policy statement:
> >>
> >> 8.1.x Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers
> >>
> >> IPv4 transfer recipients must demonstrate (and an officer of the
> >> requesting organization must attest) that they will use at least 50% of
> >> their aggregate IPv4 addresses (including the requested resources) on an
> >> operational network within 24 months.
> >>
> >> Organizations that do not meet the simplified criteria above may instead
> >> demonstrate the need for number resources using the criteria in section
> >> 4 of the NRPM.
> >>
> >> 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.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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, 20 Aug 2015 15:58:00 -0700
> From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at>
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7
> Message-ID: <55D65B78.7090709 at matthew.at>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"
>
> On 8/20/2015 2:05 PM, David Huberman wrote:
> >
> > Hi Bill,
> >
> > > Still against it because it still applies to out-region transfers
> > where ARIN no
> >
> > > longer has access to it and CAN NOT revoke it for fraud when the
> > attestation
> >
> > > turns out to be untrue.
> >
> > So I get what you're saying.  And you're right.  You and I petition
> > ARIN, attest
> > that we forecast to use a /X, we're lying, and we transfer it out of
> > the region and
> >
> > ARIN is done with it - ARIN has no control over the block transferred
> out.
> >
>
> That is true today. ARIN does not have any control over how IP blocks
> are used (or transferred) today.
>
> Which is why I'm supportive of this policy... it makes the right thing
> (recording a transfer properly in the ARIN database) happen.
>
>
> > The disagreement I have with this view is that I don't want us making
> > policy that
> >
> > punishes the 99.9% of people who are telling the truth and just want
> > to run their
> >
> > network, so that we can somehow "catch" the 0.01% of the scammers.  I
> > prefer
> >
> > making policy which works well for bona fide network operators.
> > People will always
> >
> > lie, and I do not believe it?s ARIN?s job to catch that.
> >
>
> Also agree... writing policy to try to block the wrongdoers always makes
> it harder for the legitimate users... which is the group ARIN should be
> supporting.
>
> Matthew Kaufman
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150820/8ce4741f/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:57:09 -0500
> From: khatfield at socllc.net
> To: David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7
> Message-ID:
>         <
> 1159286698.499.1440111434641 at 5671a995fdba4007998cbd15e5014528.nuevasync.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I agree with David here. I do believe there should be a requirement that
> any new allocations must keep the allocation x amount of time before it can
> transferred. Possibly 12 months+ which would thereby kill most ideas to
> sell for profit.
>
> -Kevin
>
>
>
> > On Aug 20, 2015, at 4:05 PM, David Huberman <
> David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Bill,
> >
> > > Still against it because it still applies to out-region transfers
> where ARIN no
> > > longer has access to it and CAN NOT revoke it for fraud when the
> attestation
> > > turns out to be untrue.
> >
> > So I get what you're saying.  And you're right.  You and I petition
> ARIN, attest
> > that we forecast to use a /X, we're lying, and we transfer it out of the
> region and
> > ARIN is done with it - ARIN has no control over the block transferred
> out.
> >
> > The disagreement I have with this view is that I don't want us making
> policy that
> > punishes the 99.9% of people who are telling the truth and just want to
> run their
> > network, so that we can somehow "catch" the 0.01% of the scammers.  I
> prefer
> > making policy which works well for bona fide network operators.  People
> will always
> > lie, and I do not believe it?s ARIN?s job to catch that.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > David
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20150820/e711048f/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 16:09:36 -0700
> From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> To: David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7
> Message-ID: <30A91C6A-B2BD-4F00-AC7D-723BC70E1585 at delong.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> This is one of those areas where people of good conscience can disagree.
>
> I absolutely feel it is ARINs job as a steward of resources held in trust
> for the community
> to exercise due diligence in the issuance of those resources and to revoke
> them when
> fraud is detected.
>
> It may not be ARIN?s job to catch 100% of the liars out there, but it is
> certainly important
> that we do not hamstring ARIN in their ability to protect the community
> from the liars
> and the fraudsters to the extent possible.
>
> I am opposed to the proposal.
>
> Owen
>
> > On Aug 20, 2015, at 14:05 , David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Bill, <>
> >
> > > Still against it because it still applies to out-region transfers
> where ARIN no
> > > longer has access to it and CAN NOT revoke it for fraud when the
> attestation
> > > turns out to be untrue.
> >
> > So I get what you're saying.  And you're right.  You and I petition
> ARIN, attest
> > that we forecast to use a /X, we're lying, and we transfer it out of the
> region and
> > ARIN is done with it - ARIN has no control over the block transferred
> out.
> >
> > The disagreement I have with this view is that I don't want us making
> policy that
> > punishes the 99.9% of people who are telling the truth and just want to
> run their
> > network, so that we can somehow "catch" the 0.01% of the scammers.  I
> prefer
> > making policy which works well for bona fide network operators.  People
> will always
> > lie, and I do not believe it?s ARIN?s job to catch that.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > David
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <mailto:
> ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml <
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
> > Please contact info at arin.net <mailto: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/20150820/f89d39d1/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML mailing list
> ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>
> End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 122, Issue 19
> ******************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150821/2a761025/attachment.htm>