[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

Rudolph Daniel rudi.daniel at gmail.com
Mon Jun 1 07:45:54 EDT 2015


I don't know how the community will view the complexities of such a global
one space strategy. The 5 RIRs will begin to look like an imperial umbrella
don't you think?
Arin has done a lot of work to fold into the pool the legacy blocks out
there.  I regard that as hoarding and the jury is still out IMO on the
amount and extent of future speculation before Ipv6 gains traction.
The regional policy status of the RIRs also provide for a degree of
definition that I think may be lost in a global foot loose fancy free
monolith.... that the registry system could become?
And that could, offer power centers like China and others to introduce
perhaps even more restrictive practices than currently perceived.

I just see more questions than answers Milton, and as you suggest, global
policy may come down to.. no policy at all. Hence my "If at all".

RD




On May 31, 2015 10:02 PM, "Milton Mueller" <mueller.syr.edu at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Because I favor A global number space and greater flexibility for
organizations in the use of the addresses that they have. I think most of
the paranoia about speculation and hoarding is unwarranted in results and
needless restrictions.
>
> Milton L Mueller
>
> On May 31, 2015, at 18:55, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Milton
>>
>> If you support a policy change REF: 2015-2,
>> Why would you support it?
>> RD
>>
>> On May 31, 2015 6:38 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think an ARIN policy change is in fact all that is needed. And asking
for a global policy for anything related to transfers, unfortunately, means
there will be no policy at all.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Rudolph Daniel [mailto:rudi.daniel at gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 11:45 AM
>>> To: Milton L Mueller
>>> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would agree Milton and global policy is global policy.
>>>
>>> I don't see the any value in changing Arin policy on this issue my own
opinion.
>>> RD
>>>
>>> On May 31, 2015 10:49 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It’s very naïve for people to suggest that national policy in China is
going to be affected by a global policy of RIRs.
>>>>
>>>> --MM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
On Behalf Of Rudolph Daniel
>>>> Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2015 5:49 PM
>>>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >>>That?s why I didn?t propose language? I don?t think the issue in
question can be unilaterally addressed, so I think we should accept that
and those that are interested can begin work on a globally coordinated
policy if they desire to do so.<<<
>>>>
>>>> Tend to agree ...It may be better addressed at global policy level if
at all.
>>>> RD
>>>>
>>>> On May 30, 2015 12:00 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-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR
 Transfers
>>>>>       to Specified Recipients) (Owen DeLong)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Message: 1
>>>>> Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 18:16:34 -0700
>>>>> From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
>>>>> To: Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com>
>>>>> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4
>>>>>         (Inter-RIR      Transfers to Specified Recipients)
>>>>> Message-ID: <8A9F435E-20BF-4E90-9141-99A7D93FC6EE at delong.com>
>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>>>>
>>>>> If it were enforceable, it would address my concern.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that we are then looking to have an ARIN contract
enjoin an action by the organization in another RIR which I am not sure
would give us any recourse whatsoever were that contract to be violated.
>>>>>
>>>>> That?s why I didn?t propose language? I don?t think the issue in
question can be unilaterally addressed, so I think we should accept that
and those that are interested can begin work on a globally coordinated
policy if they desire to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>> We?ve already seen that attempting to unilaterally influence minimum
policy requirements on other regions is unlikely to work. Witness RIPEs
recent ?workaround? to ?compatible needs basis?. I am not especially
interested in expanding this problem space.
>>>>>
>>>>> Owen
>>>>>
>>>>> > On May 29, 2015, at 12:06 PM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com>
wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Owen,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > So does this text cover your proposal then?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2
>>>>> > Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients)
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Date: 26 May 2015
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Problem Statement:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Organizations that obtain a 24 month supply of IP addresses via the
>>>>> > transfer market and then have an unexpected change in business plan
>>>>> > are unable to move IP addresses to the proper RIR within the first
12
>>>>> > months of receipt.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Policy statement:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Replace 8.4, bullet 4, to read:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > "> 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.
>>>>> >      - This restriction does not include a transfer to a wholly
owned
>>>>> >         subsidiary out side of the ARIN service region
>>>>> >         if the recipient org will be required to not transfer any
IP space
>>>>> >         for the remaining balance of 12 month window."
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:06 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com
<mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> On May 28, 2015, at 6:46 AM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com
<mailto:jschiller at google.com>> wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Owen,
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> How does that differ from the policy text I sent?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Can you send an idea of policy text?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I thought the text I sent said that an ARIN org can transfer IPs
out to another wholely owned subsidiary in another RIR region if they have
been the recipient of transfer in less that 12 months IF the recipient org
will be required (read by recipient's RIR policy) to hold the transfered
resource for the balance of the 12 months.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> > Your proposal allows substitution.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ARIN->Other RIR space A
>>>>> > Space B Other RIR-> Money/etc.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I want to see substitution transfers prohibited.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Owen
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> ___Jason
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On May 28, 2015 8:31 AM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com <mailto:
owen at delong.com>> wrote:
>>>>> >> Or simply not permit it under ARIN policy until such exists.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Owen
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> > On May 28, 2015, at 1:49 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net
<mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > On May 27, 2015, at 11:39 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com
<mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> My suggestion is that I don't mind (virtually) unrestricted
moves of addresses to different regions staying with the same organization.
However, if we are to allow that, I want us to find a way that you can't
merely use that as a way to move addresses out of flip protection to then
flip them to another organization via an RIR with a less restrictive
transfer policy.
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> So... If you transfer addresses to another region, keeping them
in the same organization, no penalty. However, you are not allowed to
subsequently transfer them (or other addresses in that region) to an
external party for at least 12 months.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > That second portion that you seek would affect the ongoing
operation of
>>>>> >> > another RIR, i.e. it requires them having some explicit policy
to that effect.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > To obtain the result you seek, we either need globally
coordinated transfer
>>>>> >> > policy in this area, or you need to make the inter-RIR transfer
policy explicit
>>>>> >> > in this regard in determination of compatibility.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > /John
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > John Curran
>>>>> >> > President and CEO
>>>>> >> > ARIN
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > _______________________________________________________
>>>>> > Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com <mailto:
jschiller at google.com>|571-266-0006
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>>>> URL: <
http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150529/10dd910c/attachment-0001.html
>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> ARIN-PPML mailing list
>>>>> ARIN-PPML at arin.net
>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>>>>
>>>>> End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 119, Issue 23
>>>>> ******************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150601/4cc526fc/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list