<div dir="ltr">Andrew,<div><br></div><div>I think there is one very important point that you make that is worth calling out separately:</div><div><br></div><div>Andrew writes:</div><div><div style="min-height:100%">
<div style="width:1494.4444580078125px"><div style="width:1318.4333333333334px"><div style="min-height:693px">
<div style="min-height:502.6736297607422px"><br><table cellpadding="0" style="width:1302.2222900390625px"><tbody><tr><td>
<div><div style="width:1065.12158203125px"><div style="overflow:hidden">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" style="font-size:13.333333969116211px"><div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">JS> RFC-2050 3.1 says:<br>JS><br>JS> "IP addresses are valid as long as the criteria continues to be met."</div>
</blockquote><br></div>AD> One might construe this statement to directly invalidate existing legacy allocations </div><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" style="font-size:13.333333969116211px">AD> which would now be in ARIN's policy through this policy. Others might be worried </div>
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" style="font-size:13.333333969116211px">AD> that this opens the door wider to changing policy to retroactively revoke allocations </div><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" style="font-size:13.333333969116211px">
AD> or assignments by changing "criteria". Furthermore, I believe this idea is already </div><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" style="font-size:13.333333969116211px">AD> handled by existing NRPM text and the RSA.</div>
<div style="font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13.333333969116211px">What should we do here?</div><div style="font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br></div><div>My goal was to have a "universal section" that documented the principles of "stewardship" </div>
<div>originally documented in RFC-2050 and be one place people could point to (instead of RFC-2050</div><div>in the event that the stewardship language in 2050 is deprecated). I know the definition of </div><div>stewardship has evolved, and documented in other places, all based on the spirit of RFC-2050.</div>
<div><br></div><div>It felt to me like this is a current principle of stewardship.</div><div><br></div><div>I am not trying to invent some new restriction on legacy address holders. If the community feels</div><div>this creates some new ability to revoke legacy allocations, then we should consider some language</div>
<div>to indicate that is not the case.</div><div><br></div><div>If the current RSA / NRPM text documents this principle, then I'd like for you (or someone) to lift out </div><div>that text, and add it to this section. </div>
<div><br></div><div>The goal is to have all the principles in one section, and in the event that this becomes global, or </div><div>adopted in multiple regions, they may lack the text you are thinking of. </div><div><br>
</div><div>So my questions to the community:</div><div><br></div><div>1. Does this create some new restriction on legacy address holders?</div><div>1A. if yes, should this new restriction be avoided? </div><div> Please provide draft text on what exclusions should apply to legacy addresses.</div>
<div><br></div><div>2. Is there already good text in the RSA / NRPM about this principle?</div><div>2A. If yes please quote the text.</div><div>2B. What text would you lift and include here? How would you generalize it into a principle?</div>
<div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div><br></div><div>__Jason</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div style="font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<br></div></div></div></div></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:25 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:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div>Hi Jason,<div><br>
<br>
On 5/28/2013 9:04 PM, Jason Schiller wrote:<br>
</div></div><div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Andrew thanks for your feed back.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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>
</blockquote></div>
I didn't have any of those docs in front of me when reviewing the
proposal, so I didn't specifically note they were "existing policy
text." In general, I'm in favor of reusing text where it makes
sense. I will say that there probably always is room for
improvement, and 2050 is now pretty dated so updating the language
to be more relevant to today's practices & principles is
probably a step forward.<div><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<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>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. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
I probably wasn't totally consistent in my initial comments. Since
this is "RIR Principles" I believe this policy proposal should refer
in general to number resources unless the statements directly apply
only to a subset of Internet number resources. <br><div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<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">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">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"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Do you have concerns about
where this text is located?</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
I realized later that I inserted similar "IPv4 is different that
IPv6" into multiple sections, since I thought it applied in unique
ways to each section. Perhaps for clarity it should only be in
section 0.4 Stewardship, since this is the section that talks about
balance between different elements and goals? I'm also OK with it
being only in one section, but I would want it to somehow illuminate
specifically that conservation varies based on number resource. <br>
<br>
Perhaps just add the statement w/o example? "Conservation goals may
vary due to the technical differences between IP number resources
pools." <br>
<br>
Not a showstopper for me, if it isn't in 0.1.<br>
<br>
Building on Bill's comments in his notes, I think there might be
room toward using the term sustainability in these principles. That
term is well known in "corporate speak" and might be closer to the
RIR's goals & principles compared with other words. <br><div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra">---</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Andrew writes:<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><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><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>
<br>
</div>
<div>Does that meet your concern about your proposed
text?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Do you have concerns about where
this text is located?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Perhaps just keeping it all in 0.4 is best.<div><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
Should I repeat the paragraph in 0.1, 0.1.1, and 0.4?</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div>
I wouldn't repeat the paragraph.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><div>
<div class="gmail_extra">---</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Andrew writes:</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div 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><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><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
</span></div>
</div><div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">RFC-2050
3.3 says:</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">"</span><span style="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></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I believe including text that says orgs must keep records of how the
use address space is totally appropriate. Record keeping doesn't
necessarily "proposed increased usage" but does provide
accountability and transparency which I believe should be one of the
goals of the registry system.<div><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div><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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
One might construe this statement to directly invalidate existing
legacy allocations which would now be in ARIN's policy through this
policy. Others might be worried that this opens the door wider to
changing policy to retroactively revoke allocations or assignments
by changing "criteria". Furthermore, I believe this idea is
already handled by existing NRPM text and the RSA.<div><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<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>
</pre>
</div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">"</span><span style="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>
</div>
</blockquote></div>
I believe this "policy" element is best handled in the details
section of the NRPM rather than the principles section. ARIN's
policies already define transfers. Having a generic "RIRs shall
determine IP number resources transfer policies through their
community drive policy development process." might be a good
addition to this proposal.<div><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
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>
</blockquote></div>
I just remember for multiple years discussing policy 2007-14 &
others when we put into policy existing auditing and review
practices. Since ARIN's policies and RSA already talk about audit
procedures, I also thought this was not necessary. The language "by
any means deemed appropriate by the regional registry" is a wide
open door that many I believe won't like. By using text to say
auditing is done by the community through adopted policy you limit
an RIR's auditing to specifically what the community wants the
registry to do.<div><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<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><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">Can
you elaborate on the lightening rod potin?</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div>
See above comments.<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div><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><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><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">mean
something else.</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">What
am I missing here?</span></div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Hopefully my comments above illuminate the concerns I had about the
text. Basically it comes down to "modernizing" the 2050
text/principles, and keeping principles in the principles section
and not putting specific policy in the principles section.<div><div><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Andrew writes:</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div 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 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><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><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><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><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">Andrew
writes:</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">></span></div>
<div>
<div 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><font face="arial, sans-serif">I think the point
is to demonstrate reassignment data to
demonstrate efficient utilization. </font></div>
<div><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><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">Andrew
writes:</span></div>
<div><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><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 style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">>hierarchical
aggregation are often conflicting goals."<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
<br>
</div>
<div 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 style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
conflicts between all three:</div>
<div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
</div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif">efficient utilization
vs justified need vs hierarchical aggregation. </font></div>
<div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">How
about:</div>
<div 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>hierarchical aggregation are often
conflicting goals."<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
</div>
<div 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"><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><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>> ## * ##<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><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>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><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><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><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><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>hierarchical aggregation are often
conflicting goals."<br>
<br>
</div>
Use the new LIR/ISP convention instead of "Internet
Service Providers"<br>
<div>
<div><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" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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="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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><font color="#555555" face="'courier new', monospace"><div><span style="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>