<div dir="ltr">Andrew thanks for your feed back.<div><br></div><div style>I want to point out that much of this language comes from either RFC-2050 or the current PDP or NRPM. I tired to change the language as little as possible, except where we have commonly agreed on new language such as "efficient utilization" instead of conservation. I thought that might be the most uncontroversial starting point. I am not opposed to changing it, especially if it makes the text less controversial.</div>
<div><br></div><div>---</div><div><br></div><div>WRT the LIR/ISP I agree, we should adopt whatever we think the standard term should be.<br><div><br></div><div>---</div><div><br></div><div style>WRT using number resources instead of IP address space I would have to take a careful look and make sure we are not applying principles that make sense with respect IP addressing to ASNs if they don't make sense. It is not clear to me if you think these changes should be throughout the text, or only in section 0.1. </div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">---</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br>Andrew writes:<br>> I think this section [<span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)">0.1. Efficient utilization based on need (Conservation)</span>] </div>
<div class="gmail_extra">> should have an explicit reference to the difference</div><div class="gmail_extra">> in conservation techniques for IPv4 and IPv6. A proposed sentence might<br>> be something like this... "Conservation goals may vary due to the<br>
> technical differences between IP number resources pools, for example the<br>> relatively limited size of the IPv4 address pool causes a desire to see<br>> the number space more highly utilized compared to the vast availability<br>
> of IP numbers within the IPv6 address pool."<br><br>I made a conscious effort to keep this text in section 0.4 for clarity. </div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>From the draf policy section 0.4:</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">"For example, efficient utilization becomes a more prominent issue than aggregation as the IPv4 free pool depletes and IPv4 resource availability in any transfer market decreases. Conversely, because the IPv6 number space is orders of magnitude larger than the IPv4 number space, the scale tips away from efficient utilization towards hierarchical aggregation for IPv6 number resources."</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>Does that text fulfill your suggestion of "Conservation goals may vary due to the technical differences between IP number resources pools, for example the relatively limited size of the IPv4 address pool causes a desire to see the number space more highly utilized compared to the vast availability of IP numbers within the IPv6 address pool."</div>
<div class="gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>Do you have concerns about where this text is located?</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">---</div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>Andrew writes:<br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">> "Utilization rate of address space will be an important factor in</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">> justifying need for IP number resources. However, utilization rates</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">> will vary due to the technical differences (e.g. IPv4 vs. IPv6) between</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">> number resource pools."</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
</span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">Again, I made </span>a conscious effort to keep this text in section 0.4 for clarity, and would quote the same text.</div>
<div style>
<br></div><div style>Does that meet your concern about your proposed text?</div><div style><br></div><div style><div class="gmail_extra">Do you have concerns about where this text is located?</div><div><br></div><div style>
Should I repeat the paragraph in 0.1, 0.1.1, and 0.4?</div></div><div class="gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>---</div><div class="gmail_extra" style>Andrew writes:</div><div class="gmail_extra" style>
<div class="im" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>> In order to promote increased usage of Internet number resources,<br>>> resource holders will be required to provide an accounting of<br>
>> resources currently held demonstrating efficient utilization. Internet<br>>> number resources are valid as long as the criteria continues to be<br>>> met. The transfer of Internet number resources from one party to<br>
>> another must be approved by the regional registries. The party trying<br>>> to obtain the resources must meet the same criteria as if they were<br>>> requesting resources directly from the IR.<br>>><br>
>> All Internet number resource requests are subject to audit and<br>>> verification by any means deemed appropriate by the regional registry.<br>>><br>></div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">> I suspect the above two paragraphs may be lightning rods against the</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">> policy proposal. May I suggest the following single paragraph in lieu</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">> of the above two paragraphs.</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">> In order meet the Principles and Goals of the Internet Registry System,</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">> resource holders may be required from time to time to provide an</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">> accounting and current usage of resources currently held. The RIRs</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">> shall set policies to define these accounting mythologies as part of</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">> their community driven policy process.</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
</span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">I'm not sure why you think these two paragraphs are lightening rods.</span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
</span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">RFC-250 3.3 says:</span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">"</span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);white-space:pre-wrap">T</span>o promote increased usage of address space, the registries will<br>
require an accounting of address space previously assigned to the<br> enterprise, if any."</div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br></span></div>RFC-2050 3.1 says:<br>
<br>"IP addresses are valid as long as the criteria continues to be met."<div style><pre style="word-wrap:break-word"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px;white-space:pre-wrap">RFC-2050 4.7 says</span><br>
</pre></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">"</span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);white-space:pre-wrap">The transfer of I</span>P addresses from one party to another must be<br>
approved by the regional registries. The party trying to obtain<br> the IP address must meet the same criteria as if they were<br> requesting an IP address directly from the IR."</div><div><br></div><div style>
RFC-2050 4.4 says:</div>
"All IP address requests are subject to audit and verification<br> by any means deemed appropriate by the regional registry."<br><br></div><div>And there is lots of text about conservation in RFC-2050 and </div>
<div>efficient utilization in the NRPM.<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br></span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">Can you elaborate on the lightening rod potin?</span></div>
<div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br></span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">I can only guess you are suggesting that the community wants</span></div>
<div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">to depart from the principles in RFC-2050, but think you must</span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">mean something else.</span></div>
<div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br></span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">What am I missing here?</span></div>
<div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>---</div><div class="gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>Andrew writes:</div>
<div class="gmail_extra" style><div class="im" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>> 0.2. Hierarchical aggregation (Routability)<br>>><br>>> Policies for managing Internet number resources must support<br>
>> distribution of globally unique Internet addresses in a hierarchical<br>>> manner, permitting the routing scalability of the addresses. </div><div class="im" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
></div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">> Should the RIR's goals be "LISP agnostic"? That is if LISP becomes the</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">> predominant routing methodology in the future, one would not necessarily</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">> expect the goals of the RIRs to change.</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">> Suggested change to end of first sentence.</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">> ... permitting the routing scalability of the addresses as required by</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">> the current technical limitations of global routing protocols.</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
</div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br></span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">I think this change is good even w/o considering LISP.</span></div>
<div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">Imagine we have new holographic memory that can hold orders of </span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">magnitude more data and decrease read time</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">---</span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
</span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">Andrew writes:</span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">></span></div>
<div><div class="im" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>> 0.3. Uniqueness (Registration)<br>>><br>>> c) to ensure that a provider has exhausted a majority of<br>>> its current CIDR allocation, thereby justifying an additional<br>
>> allocation d) to assist in IP allocation studies.<br>></div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">> Suggested revision for "C"</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">> to allow a LIR to demonstrate and disclose reassignment of IP number</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">> resources to third-parties</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
</span></div><div style><font face="arial, sans-serif">I think the point is to demonstrate reassignment data to demonstrate efficient utilization. </font></div><div style><font face="arial, sans-serif">But I also think that point is covered in section 0.1.1, So the rewrite here is ok.</font></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">---</span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
</span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">Andrew writes:</span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">> Perhaps add a statement specifically about Stewardship</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">> "Stewardship of IP number resources is the balance of overseeing and</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">> protecting the interests of all Internet stakeholders to further the</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">> development and expansion of the Internet and the Internet Registry System."</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<br>I do not oppose this text.</div><div style><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">Andrew also writes...</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">> justified need as a conflicting goal should be explicitly mentioned.</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">> "It should be noted that efficient utilization, justified need, and</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<div class="im" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>hierarchical aggregation are often conflicting goals."<br></div><div class="im" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<br></div><div class="im" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">I'm not sure this parses correctly... This sounds to me like there are </div><div class="im" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
conflicts between all three:</div><div class="im" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br></div><div class="im"><font face="arial, sans-serif">efficient utilization vs justified need vs hierarchical aggregation. </font></div>
<div class="im" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br></div><div class="im" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">How about:</div><div class="im" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">"It should be noted that efficient utilization based on justified need, and</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><div class="im">hierarchical aggregation are often conflicting goals."<br>
</div><div><br></div></div><div class="im" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br></div><div class="im" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br></div></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">-</span></div><div class="gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Andrew Dul <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:andrew.dul@quark.net" target="_blank">andrew.dul@quark.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">I support adding these guiding principles to the NRPM, furthermore I<br>
would support efforts to introduce this policy in all RIR regions to<br>
make this a global policy.<br>
<br>
Comments on the proposed text in-line below.<br>
<br>
Andrew<br>
<div class="im"><br>
On 5/17/2013 9:53 AM, ARIN wrote:<br>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4<br>
> RIR Principles<br>
><br>
> On 16 May 2013 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-187<br>
> RIR Principles" as a Draft Policy.<br>
><br>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4 is below and can be found at:<br>
> <a href="https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2013_4.html" target="_blank">https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2013_4.html</a><br>
><br>
><br>
</div><div><div class="h5">> ## * ##<br>
><br>
><br>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4<br>
> RIR Principles<br>
><br>
> Date: 17 May 2013<br>
><br>
> Problem Statement:<br>
><br>
> The original text in RFC 2050 both "describes the registry system for<br>
> the distribution of globally unique Internet address space and<br>
> registry operations" and provides "rules and guidelines [principles]<br>
> governing the distribution of this address space."<br>
><br>
> The currently proposed update (RFC2050bis) "provides information about<br>
> the current Internet Numbers Registry System used in the distribution<br>
> of globally unique Internet Protocol (IP) address space and autonomous<br>
> system (AS) numbers" and "provides information about the processes for<br>
> further evolution of the Internet Numbers Registry System."<br>
><br>
> This means that the guiding principles of stewardship are not<br>
> currently being carried forward into the new document. The goals of<br>
> Conservation (efficient utilization based on need), Routability<br>
> (hierarchical aggregation), and Registration (uniqueness) are as<br>
> important, if not more so, now that the transition to IPv6 is upon us.<br>
> This can be rectified by documenting these principles in RIR policy.<br>
><br>
> Policy Statement:<br>
><br>
> Section 0: Principles and Goals of the Internet Registry System<br>
><br>
> 0.1. Efficient utilization based on need (Conservation)<br>
><br>
> Policies for managing Internet number resources must support fair<br>
> distribution of globally unique Internet address space according to<br>
> the operational needs of the end-users and Internet Service Providers<br>
> operating networks using this address space. The registry should<br>
> prevent stockpiling in order to maximize the conservation and<br>
> efficient utilization of the Internet address space.<br>
<br>
</div></div>This section should use the new proposed convention of "LIR/ISP" as<br>
being developed in ARIN-2013-5.<br>
<br>
s/this address space/IP number resources/r<br>
s/Internet address space/IP number resources/r<br>
<br>
I think this section should have an explicit reference to the difference<br>
in conservation techniques for IPv4 and IPv6. A proposed sentence might<br>
be something like this... "Conservation goals may vary due to the<br>
technical differences between IP number resources pools, for example the<br>
relatively limited size of the IPv4 address pool causes a desire to see<br>
the number space more highly utilized compared to the vast availability<br>
of IP numbers within the IPv6 address pool."<br>
<div class="im"><br>
><br>
> 0.1.1. Documented Justified Need (Needs Based)<br>
><br>
> Assignment of Internet number resources is based on documented<br>
> operational need. Utilization rate of address space will be a key<br>
> factor in number resource assignment. To this end, registrants should<br>
> have documented justified need available for each assignment.<br>
> Organizations will be assigned resources based on immediate<br>
> utilization plus expected utilization.<br>
<br>
</div>Utilization rate is much more important for IPv4 than IPv6.<br>
<br>
Suggested revision for "Utilization rate of address space will be a key<br>
<div class="im">factor in number resource assignment."<br>
<br>
</div>"Utilization rate of address space will be an important factor in<br>
justifying need for IP number resources. However, utilization rates<br>
will vary due to the technical differences (e.g. IPv4 vs. IPv6) between<br>
number resource pools."<br>
<div class="im"><br>
><br>
> In order to promote increased usage of Internet number resources,<br>
> resource holders will be required to provide an accounting of<br>
> resources currently held demonstrating efficient utilization. Internet<br>
> number resources are valid as long as the criteria continues to be<br>
> met. The transfer of Internet number resources from one party to<br>
> another must be approved by the regional registries. The party trying<br>
> to obtain the resources must meet the same criteria as if they were<br>
> requesting resources directly from the IR.<br>
><br>
> All Internet number resource requests are subject to audit and<br>
> verification by any means deemed appropriate by the regional registry.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>I suspect the above two paragraphs may be lightning rods against the<br>
policy proposal. May I suggest the following single paragraph in lieu<br>
of the above two paragraphs.<br>
<br>
In order meet the Principles and Goals of the Internet Registry System,<br>
resource holders may be required from time to time to provide an<br>
accounting and current usage of resources currently held. The RIRs<br>
shall set policies to define these accounting mythologies as part of<br>
their community driven policy process.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
> 0.2. Hierarchical aggregation (Routability)<br>
><br>
> Policies for managing Internet number resources must support<br>
> distribution of globally unique Internet addresses in a hierarchical<br>
> manner, permitting the routing scalability of the addresses. This<br>
> scalability is necessary to ensure proper operation of Internet<br>
> routing, although it must be stressed that routability is in no way<br>
> guaranteed with the allocation or assignment of IPv4 addresses.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>Should the RIR's goals be "LISP agnostic"? That is if LISP becomes the<br>
predominant routing methodology in the future, one would not necessarily<br>
expect the goals of the RIRs to change.<br>
<br>
Suggested change to end of first sentence.<br>
<br>
... permitting the routing scalability of the addresses as required by<br>
the current technical limitations of global routing protocols.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> 0.3. Uniqueness (Registration)<br>
><br>
> Provision of a public registry documenting Internet number resource<br>
> allocation, reallocation, assignment, and reassignment is necessary to:<br>
><br>
> a) ensure uniqueness and to to provide operational staff with<br>
> information on who is using the number resource b) to provide a<br>
> contact in case of operational/security problems (e.g. Law<br>
> Enforcement) c) to ensure that a provider has exhausted a majority of<br>
> its current CIDR allocation, thereby justifying an additional<br>
> allocation d) to assist in IP allocation studies.<br>
<br>
</div>Suggested revision for "C"<br>
<br>
to allow a LIR to demonstrate and disclose reassignment of IP number<br>
resources to third-parties<br>
<div class="im"><br>
><br>
> It is imperative that reassignment information be submitted in a<br>
> prompt and efficient manner to facilitate database maintenance and<br>
> ensure database integrity.<br>
><br>
> 0.4. Stewardship<br>
><br>
> It should be noted that efficient utilization and hierarchical<br>
> aggregation are often conflicting goals. All the above goals may<br>
> sometimes be in conflict with the interests of individual end-users or<br>
> Internet Service Providers. Care must be taken to ensure balance with<br>
> these conflicting goals given the resource availability, relative size<br>
> of the resource, and number resource specific technical dynamics, for<br>
> each type of number resource. For example, efficient utilization<br>
> becomes a more prominent issue than aggregation as the IPv4 free pool<br>
> depletes and IPv4 resource availability in any transfer market<br>
> decreases. Conversely, because the IPv6 number space is orders of<br>
> magnitude larger than the IPv4 number space, the scale tips away from<br>
> efficient utilization towards hierarchical aggregation for IPv6 number<br>
> resources.<br>
<br>
</div>Perhaps add a statement specifically about Stewardship<br>
<br>
"Stewardship of IP number resources is the balance of overseeing and<br>
protecting the interests of all Internet stakeholders to further the<br>
development and expansion of the Internet and the Internet Registry System."<br>
<br>
Also...<br>
<br>
justified need as a conflicting goal should be explicitly mentioned.<br>
<br>
"It should be noted that efficient utilization, justified need, and<br>
<div class="im">hierarchical aggregation are often conflicting goals."<br>
<br>
</div>Use the new LIR/ISP convention instead of "Internet Service Providers"<br>
<div class=""><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
><br>
> Comments:<br>
><br>
> a. Timetable for implementation: immediately<br>
><br>
> b. I believe that it would be beneficial for IANA to adopt these<br>
> principles as well, and encourage the community to consider a global<br>
> policy proposal.<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> PPML<br>
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
> <a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
> Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><font color="#555555" face="'courier new', monospace"><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial"><font color="#555555" face="'courier new', monospace">_______________________________________________________<br>
</font><div><font face="'courier new', monospace">Jason Schiller|NetOps|<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com" target="_blank">jschiller@google.com</a>|571-266-0006</font></div><div><font face="'courier new', monospace"><br>
</font></div></span></div></font>
</div></div></div>