From jredisch at virtela.com Wed May 10 13:05:02 2000 From: jredisch at virtela.com (Jason Redisch) Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 11:05:02 -0600 Subject: FW: Long over due Message-ID: Hello All, I am reposting this issue from the CLEW mailing list to the policy mailing list as this appears to be more of a policy issue. I think it is important to try to hash out any sort of change to the transfer policy in an open discussion forum such as this mailing list before the next meeting. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Jason Redisch (w) 720-528-4368 Sr IP Engineer (f) 720-528-4361 Virtela Communications -----Original Message----- From: Jason Redisch [mailto:jredisch at virtela.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 10:28 AM To: Bill Darte; Clew Workgroup (E-mail) Subject: RE: Long over due Hello All, At some point before the next meeting I wanted to discuss the transfer policy. I don't know if this is the right forum or not, but since it is the only active one.. . At the last meeting the fact that transfers have increased was brought up and the whole transfer policy was to be revisited at the next meeting. from the minutes: "The number of organizational transfers have been increasing. Whether this is due to organizations not having to justify space, or because the fee is minimal, is not clear. Members were asked to be thinking about whether ARIN's transfer policy should be changed. Statistics on the number of transfers will be provided in the future." I think it would make sense to discuss this either here or in the policy working group. I have some ideas about how we might be able to better protect the community from 'unjustified' transfers and would really like to hear others input on this topic. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Jason Redisch (w) 720-528-4368 Sr IP Engineer (f) 720-528-4361 Virtela Communications -----Original Message----- From: clew-request at arin.net [mailto:clew-request at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill Darte Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 7:19 AM To: Clew Workgroup (E-mail) Subject: Long over due Clew members... At the Calgary meeting many of spoke about the need to get the CLEW workgroup established and working on substantive issues that members and the industry need.....Education about ARIN, addressing, whatever.... I promised that when I got back I would prime the workgroup with a message. A message that would elicit response to see if the mail server 'really works' and to see if anyone would 'really respond'.... so here it is..... Is anyone listening out there? I propose that each of you identify one, just 1, topic that you think would be of interest or is needed by the address providers or consumers.... I would be willing to aggregate the list and prioritize the efforts toward accomplishing the tasks on the list. So, please send your topic and let's get started. BTW....my topic is the creation of a two-day workshop that explains about addressing history, the dilemmas of addressing and route tables, the need for conservation, ARIN and it's agenda...ICANN and it's agenda....IPv6 and it's agenda....etc. This seminar would be taught by me and would travel to whatever ISP arranged customer/industry gathering which requests it on a first-come, first-served basis. Local organizations would support the cost of the local arrangements and seminar leaders travel..... the cost of the leader would be supported by ARIN out of a Education fund, to be established. The actual leader would be an ARIN employee or some contract educator like myself or others. Bill Darte ARIN AC member From danny at tcb.net Wed May 10 13:17:42 2000 From: danny at tcb.net (Danny McPherson) Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 11:17:42 -0600 Subject: FW: Long over due Message-ID: <200005101717.LAA26291@tcb.net> > I have some ideas about how we might be able to better protect the community > from 'unjustified' transfers and would really like to hear others input > on this topic. I'll bite, what were your ideas? -danny From jredisch at virtela.com Wed May 10 14:01:49 2000 From: jredisch at virtela.com (Jason Redisch) Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:01:49 -0600 Subject: FW: Long over due In-Reply-To: <200005101717.LAA26291@tcb.net> Message-ID: Thanks Danny, A lot of the discussion at the last meeting centered on the fact that a lot of unjustified IP space was changing hands through some rather suspect sales. As a policy there is no way to distinguish between a 'legitimate transfer' caused by merger activity vs. the sale of IP address through a shell corp. of some sort. One solution proposed was to increase the cost of transfer and increase the justification required for a transfer. This makes it more difficult for everyone involved. As the policy stands now all of the IP space being transferred from the purchased company must undergo justification at the time of the transfer. This slows down the transfer process but is required as the end users may never have to come back to ARIN again after the transfer is complete. If there was a way to speed the transfer process for ISP's who have to come back every three months anyway, this might allow ARIN to focus more time on the 'other' transfers while actually making life easier for members working on legitimate mergers. What I am proposing is that if both companies involved in a merger are registered ARIN ISP's that have a history with ARIN, then the justification of the transfer between the two maintainer ID's should be included with the justification the next time an ISP has to go back for more IP space. This way the ISP's can focus on the mergers and ARIN can focus more energy on transfers between entities without a history. The main logic behind this change is that both ISP's had already justified their IP space to ARIN under the current ARIN policy. They still must show they have a need for the combined IP space, but there is no reason this cannot be combined with the justification at the time of their next request. Questions: Should end users be included in this as well or should it only impact ISP to ISP mergers as end users may not have the need to ever come back to ARIN again? What about ISP end user mergers? What does is mean to have a history with ARIN? A number of additional space requests? Some period of time? If something like this is approved what additional changes should be made the transfer policy for those organizations who do not fall under this new policy? Increased cost? More justification? Is this worth the time to discuss or should we be looking at just making transfers more difficult across the board? /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Jason Redisch (w) 720-528-4368 Sr IP Engineer (f) 720-528-4361 Virtela Communications -----Original Message----- From: danny at sofos.tcb.net [mailto:danny at sofos.tcb.net]On Behalf Of Danny McPherson Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 11:18 AM To: jredisch at virtela.com Cc: policy at arin.net Subject: Re: FW: Long over due > I have some ideas about how we might be able to better protect the community > from 'unjustified' transfers and would really like to hear others input > on this topic. I'll bite, what were your ideas? -danny From kimh at arin.net Wed May 10 14:40:39 2000 From: kimh at arin.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 14:40:39 -0400 Subject: FW: Long over due In-Reply-To: References: <200005101717.LAA26291@tcb.net> Message-ID: <4.1.20000510143423.00b94500@192.149.252.141> At 12:01 PM 5/10/00 -0600, Jason Redisch wrote: >Thanks Danny, > What I am proposing is that if both companies involved in a merger are >registered ARIN ISP's that have a history with ARIN, then the justification >of the transfer between the two maintainer ID's should be included with the >justification the next time an ISP has to go back for more IP space. This >way the ISP's can focus on the mergers and ARIN can focus more energy on >transfers between entities without a history. Wouldn't this slow down the process for requesting more addresses? Usually, when an ISP is requesting more addresses they're in a bigger time crunch than when they're asking for a transfer. Perhaps asking for utilization of the addresses isn't required as long as the legal documention looks good. The ISPs that have a history with ARIN isn't as big a problem (from out viewpoint) as those orgs that we've never heard of and will never hear of again. Kim > > The main logic behind this change is that both ISP's had already justified >their IP space to ARIN under the current ARIN policy. They still must show >they have a need for the combined IP space, but there is no reason this >cannot be combined with the justification at the time of their next request. > >Questions: > >Should end users be included in this as well or should it only impact ISP to >ISP mergers as end users may not have the need to ever come back to ARIN >again? What about ISP end user mergers? > >What does is mean to have a history with ARIN? A number of additional space >requests? Some period of time? > >If something like this is approved what additional changes should be made >the transfer policy for those organizations who do not fall under this new >policy? Increased cost? More justification? > >Is this worth the time to discuss or should we be looking at just making >transfers more difficult across the board? > >/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ >Jason Redisch (w) 720-528-4368 >Sr IP Engineer (f) 720-528-4361 >Virtela Communications > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: danny at sofos.tcb.net [mailto:danny at sofos.tcb.net]On Behalf Of Danny >McPherson >Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 11:18 AM >To: jredisch at virtela.com >Cc: policy at arin.net >Subject: Re: FW: Long over due > > > > >> I have some ideas about how we might be able to better protect the >community >> from 'unjustified' transfers and would really like to hear others input >> on this topic. > >I'll bite, what were your ideas? > >-danny From jredisch at virtela.com Wed May 10 16:39:08 2000 From: jredisch at virtela.com (Jason Redisch) Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 14:39:08 -0600 Subject: transfer process In-Reply-To: <4.1.20000510143423.00b94500@192.149.252.141> Message-ID: Kim, I agree. The main point is to put off the initial IP justification until the next scheduled period. There is little point in taking up time of both sides one month for a transfer justification and a month later for an additional address request. Either the two processes should be merged or we should drop the re-justification process since these entities had to justify this IP space once before already with ARIN. This would provide ARIN more time to focus on transfers between companies with no ARIN history. BTW: Just to clarify, the justification described above is separate from providing legal documentation of proof of ownership/merger. That should still be required before any transfer takes place. -Jason -----Original Message----- From: Kim Hubbard [mailto:kimh at arin.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 12:41 PM To: jredisch at virtela.com; danny at tcb.net Cc: policy at arin.net Subject: RE: FW: Long over due At 12:01 PM 5/10/00 -0600, Jason Redisch wrote: >Thanks Danny, > What I am proposing is that if both companies involved in a merger are >registered ARIN ISP's that have a history with ARIN, then the justification >of the transfer between the two maintainer ID's should be included with the >justification the next time an ISP has to go back for more IP space. This >way the ISP's can focus on the mergers and ARIN can focus more energy on >transfers between entities without a history. Wouldn't this slow down the process for requesting more addresses? Usually, when an ISP is requesting more addresses they're in a bigger time crunch than when they're asking for a transfer. Perhaps asking for utilization of the addresses isn't required as long as the legal documention looks good. The ISPs that have a history with ARIN isn't as big a problem (from out viewpoint) as those orgs that we've never heard of and will never hear of again. Kim > > The main logic behind this change is that both ISP's had already justified >their IP space to ARIN under the current ARIN policy. They still must show >they have a need for the combined IP space, but there is no reason this >cannot be combined with the justification at the time of their next request. > >Questions: > >Should end users be included in this as well or should it only impact ISP to >ISP mergers as end users may not have the need to ever come back to ARIN >again? What about ISP end user mergers? > >What does is mean to have a history with ARIN? A number of additional space >requests? Some period of time? > >If something like this is approved what additional changes should be made >the transfer policy for those organizations who do not fall under this new >policy? Increased cost? More justification? > >Is this worth the time to discuss or should we be looking at just making >transfers more difficult across the board? > >/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ >Jason Redisch (w) 720-528-4368 >Sr IP Engineer (f) 720-528-4361 >Virtela Communications > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: danny at sofos.tcb.net [mailto:danny at sofos.tcb.net]On Behalf Of Danny >McPherson >Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 11:18 AM >To: jredisch at virtela.com >Cc: policy at arin.net >Subject: Re: FW: Long over due > > > > >> I have some ideas about how we might be able to better protect the >community >> from 'unjustified' transfers and would really like to hear others input >> on this topic. > >I'll bite, what were your ideas? > >-danny From John.Sweeting at cwusa.com Wed May 10 16:57:03 2000 From: John.Sweeting at cwusa.com (Sweeting, John) Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 16:57:03 -0400 Subject: transfer process Message-ID: <3FD40150593CD2119D5200805FA7D965050A7D27@us-cwi-exc-a07.cwi.cablew.com> Having gone through a huge transfer (MCI to Cable & Wireless) I do not understand why there would be any problems with providing ARIN a justification. It actually made it easier to apply for additional address space because all issues were cleared up on all address space at the time of the transfer. I do not see the need to change the process. Any company abiding by the RFC and keeping good records should have no problems justifying transferred space or when requesting additional space. Just my experience and thoughts. -----Original Message----- From: Jason Redisch [mailto:jredisch at virtela.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 4:39 PM To: policy at arin.net Subject: transfer process Kim, I agree. The main point is to put off the initial IP justification until the next scheduled period. There is little point in taking up time of both sides one month for a transfer justification and a month later for an additional address request. Either the two processes should be merged or we should drop the re-justification process since these entities had to justify this IP space once before already with ARIN. This would provide ARIN more time to focus on transfers between companies with no ARIN history. BTW: Just to clarify, the justification described above is separate from providing legal documentation of proof of ownership/merger. That should still be required before any transfer takes place. -Jason -----Original Message----- From: Kim Hubbard [mailto:kimh at arin.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 12:41 PM To: jredisch at virtela.com; danny at tcb.net Cc: policy at arin.net Subject: RE: FW: Long over due At 12:01 PM 5/10/00 -0600, Jason Redisch wrote: >Thanks Danny, > What I am proposing is that if both companies involved in a merger are >registered ARIN ISP's that have a history with ARIN, then the justification >of the transfer between the two maintainer ID's should be included with the >justification the next time an ISP has to go back for more IP space. This >way the ISP's can focus on the mergers and ARIN can focus more energy on >transfers between entities without a history. Wouldn't this slow down the process for requesting more addresses? Usually, when an ISP is requesting more addresses they're in a bigger time crunch than when they're asking for a transfer. Perhaps asking for utilization of the addresses isn't required as long as the legal documention looks good. The ISPs that have a history with ARIN isn't as big a problem (from out viewpoint) as those orgs that we've never heard of and will never hear of again. Kim > > The main logic behind this change is that both ISP's had already justified >their IP space to ARIN under the current ARIN policy. They still must show >they have a need for the combined IP space, but there is no reason this >cannot be combined with the justification at the time of their next request. > >Questions: > >Should end users be included in this as well or should it only impact ISP to >ISP mergers as end users may not have the need to ever come back to ARIN >again? What about ISP end user mergers? > >What does is mean to have a history with ARIN? A number of additional space >requests? Some period of time? > >If something like this is approved what additional changes should be made >the transfer policy for those organizations who do not fall under this new >policy? Increased cost? More justification? > >Is this worth the time to discuss or should we be looking at just making >transfers more difficult across the board? > >/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ >Jason Redisch (w) 720-528-4368 >Sr IP Engineer (f) 720-528-4361 >Virtela Communications > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: danny at sofos.tcb.net [mailto:danny at sofos.tcb.net]On Behalf Of Danny >McPherson >Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 11:18 AM >To: jredisch at virtela.com >Cc: policy at arin.net >Subject: Re: FW: Long over due > > > > >> I have some ideas about how we might be able to better protect the >community >> from 'unjustified' transfers and would really like to hear others input >> on this topic. > >I'll bite, what were your ideas? > >-danny From henryc at nextlink.com Thu May 11 06:07:49 2000 From: henryc at nextlink.com (Henry Clark) Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 06:07:49 -0400 Subject: transfer process In-Reply-To: References: <4.1.20000510143423.00b94500@192.149.252.141> Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20000511055316.00c58b00@mail.cdc.nextlink.net> At 02:39 PM 5/10/00 -0600, Jason Redisch wrote: >I agree. The main point is to put off the initial IP justification until >the next scheduled period. There is little point in taking up time of both >sides one month for a transfer justification and a month later for an >additional address request. As the saying goes "You can pay me now, or pay me later, but ya still gotta pay me". Why wouldn't you get stuff cleaned up at the time of the transfer and avoid yourself significant grief when you're under time pressure to obtain more address space? The alternative is to have folks screaming at you when you're under the gun to get more space and waste time cleaning up your allocations, which seems less than optimal to me. You're going to spend the same amount of time doing the work; so you might as well just get it done and make the next round of "more please" more pleasant for everyone involved. henry From danny at tcb.net Thu May 11 21:28:57 2000 From: danny at tcb.net (Danny McPherson) Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 19:28:57 -0600 Subject: transfer process Message-ID: <200005120128.TAA03498@tcb.net> I agree with Henry here. It'll have to be done anyways and though procrastination may seem like a good thing, doing it sooner rather than later may actually save you some work in the long run. Without thoroughly understanding where you currently stand regarding allocations and addressing of the networks involved, it would seem you're really not yet in a position to ask for anything additional. -danny > As the saying goes "You can pay me now, or pay me later, but ya still > gotta pay me". > > Why wouldn't you get stuff cleaned up at the time of the transfer and > avoid yourself significant grief when you're under time pressure to > obtain more address space? The alternative is to have folks screaming > at you when you're under the gun to get more space and waste time > cleaning up your allocations, which seems less than optimal to me. > > You're going to spend the same amount of time doing the work; so you > might as well just get it done and make the next round of "more please" > more pleasant for everyone involved. > > henry > From jredisch at virtela.com Thu May 11 23:22:34 2000 From: jredisch at virtela.com (Jason Redisch) Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 21:22:34 -0600 Subject: transfer policy Message-ID: <000001bfbbc1$518de840$64d1aacd@jredisch.ip.qwest.net> John, Being able to distinguish known ISP to ISP transfers that both have an ARIN history vs. all other transfers has an advantage on its own by allowing ARIN to dedicate more resources to unknown transfers. Other than that both MCI and C&W had already justified their address space to ARIN. During the transfer you had to show legal transfer and rejustify both ISP's address space even though both were already ARIN members. You also had a history of coming back to ARIN for IP space so if the justification was not completed then it is not like you would disappear off the face of the Earth. I see no reason why we as a community need to waste your resources and ARIN's re-justifying both of the address pools in a merger like the one you went through. It is not a question of putting off something that needs to be justified. It is a question of spending time going through two justifications or just one. -Jason From John.Sweeting at cwusa.com Fri May 12 07:59:00 2000 From: John.Sweeting at cwusa.com (Sweeting, John) Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 07:59:00 -0400 Subject: transfer policy Message-ID: <3FD40150593CD2119D5200805FA7D965050A7D56@us-cwi-exc-a07.cwi.cablew.com> Jason, I see your point more clearly now but it really was advantageous for me to do this because both companies had beaucoup legacy address space that had never been justified but due to the transfer now had to be. I could probably agree with you if both companies involved in a transfer owned nothing but ARIN justified address space that it could be a waste of time and resources to re-justify the space. I have no idea how many transfers today are in that category. My feeling is that this policy has helped to clean up some of the legacy address space issues that are out there. Kim, is there any statistics kept on this? or would any of your staff be able to make an educated swag? -----Original Message----- From: Jason Redisch [mailto:jredisch at virtela.com] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 11:23 PM To: policy at arin.net Subject: RE: transfer policy John, Being able to distinguish known ISP to ISP transfers that both have an ARIN history vs. all other transfers has an advantage on its own by allowing ARIN to dedicate more resources to unknown transfers. Other than that both MCI and C&W had already justified their address space to ARIN. During the transfer you had to show legal transfer and rejustify both ISP's address space even though both were already ARIN members. You also had a history of coming back to ARIN for IP space so if the justification was not completed then it is not like you would disappear off the face of the Earth. I see no reason why we as a community need to waste your resources and ARIN's re-justifying both of the address pools in a merger like the one you went through. It is not a question of putting off something that needs to be justified. It is a question of spending time going through two justifications or just one. -Jason From kimh at arin.net Fri May 12 11:33:37 2000 From: kimh at arin.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 11:33:37 -0400 Subject: transfer policy In-Reply-To: <3FD40150593CD2119D5200805FA7D965050A7D56@us-cwi-exc-a07.cw i.cablew.com> Message-ID: <4.1.20000512113308.00dea860@192.149.252.141> At 07:59 AM 5/12/00 -0400, Sweeting, John wrote: >Jason, > >I see your point more clearly now but it really was advantageous for me to >do this because both companies had beaucoup legacy address space that had >never been justified but due to the transfer now had to be. >I could probably agree with you if both companies involved in a transfer >owned nothing but ARIN justified address space that it could be a waste of >time and resources to re-justify the space. I have no idea how many >transfers today are in that category. My feeling is that this policy has >helped to clean up some of the legacy address space issues that are out >there. > >Kim, is there any statistics kept on this? or would any of your staff be >able to make an educated swag? I'll look into it but I'm assuming most transfer requests involve at least some legacy addresses. Kim > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jason Redisch [mailto:jredisch at virtela.com] >Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 11:23 PM >To: policy at arin.net >Subject: RE: transfer policy > > >John, > > Being able to distinguish known ISP to ISP transfers that both have >an ARIN >history vs. all other transfers has an advantage on its own by allowing ARIN >to dedicate more resources to unknown transfers. > > Other than that both MCI and C&W had already justified their address >space >to ARIN. During the transfer you had to show legal transfer and rejustify >both ISP's address space even though both were already ARIN members. You >also had a history of coming back to ARIN for IP space so if the >justification was not completed then it is not like you would disappear off >the face of the Earth. I see no reason why we as a community need to waste >your resources and ARIN's re-justifying both of the address pools in a >merger like the one you went through. > > It is not a question of putting off something that needs to be >justified. >It is a question of spending time going through two justifications or just >one. > >-Jason From John.Sweeting at cwusa.com Fri May 12 13:00:11 2000 From: John.Sweeting at cwusa.com (Sweeting, John) Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 13:00:11 -0400 Subject: transfer policy Message-ID: <3FD40150593CD2119D5200805FA7D965050A7D5D@us-cwi-exc-a07.cwi.cablew.com> I agree, Kim. I would guess that almost all transfers involve some legacy addresses. Does your staff feel that the justification at transfer time has helped to clean up some of the legacy address issues? -----Original Message----- From: Kim Hubbard [mailto:kimh at arin.net] Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 11:34 AM To: Sweeting, John; policy at arin.net Subject: RE: transfer policy At 07:59 AM 5/12/00 -0400, Sweeting, John wrote: >Jason, > >I see your point more clearly now but it really was advantageous for me to >do this because both companies had beaucoup legacy address space that had >never been justified but due to the transfer now had to be. >I could probably agree with you if both companies involved in a transfer >owned nothing but ARIN justified address space that it could be a waste of >time and resources to re-justify the space. I have no idea how many >transfers today are in that category. My feeling is that this policy has >helped to clean up some of the legacy address space issues that are out >there. > >Kim, is there any statistics kept on this? or would any of your staff be >able to make an educated swag? I'll look into it but I'm assuming most transfer requests involve at least some legacy addresses. Kim > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jason Redisch [mailto:jredisch at virtela.com] >Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 11:23 PM >To: policy at arin.net >Subject: RE: transfer policy > > >John, > > Being able to distinguish known ISP to ISP transfers that both have >an ARIN >history vs. all other transfers has an advantage on its own by allowing ARIN >to dedicate more resources to unknown transfers. > > Other than that both MCI and C&W had already justified their address >space >to ARIN. During the transfer you had to show legal transfer and rejustify >both ISP's address space even though both were already ARIN members. You >also had a history of coming back to ARIN for IP space so if the >justification was not completed then it is not like you would disappear off >the face of the Earth. I see no reason why we as a community need to waste >your resources and ARIN's re-justifying both of the address pools in a >merger like the one you went through. > > It is not a question of putting off something that needs to be >justified. >It is a question of spending time going through two justifications or just >one. > >-Jason From kimh at arin.net Fri May 12 13:30:26 2000 From: kimh at arin.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 13:30:26 -0400 Subject: transfer policy In-Reply-To: <3FD40150593CD2119D5200805FA7D965050A7D5D@us-cwi-exc-a07.cw i.cablew.com> Message-ID: <4.1.20000512132335.01a8d4d0@192.149.252.141> I wouldn't say that justification itself helps with the legacy issues. Kim At 01:00 PM 5/12/00 -0400, Sweeting, John wrote: >I agree, Kim. I would guess that almost all transfers involve some legacy >addresses. > >Does your staff feel that the justification at transfer time has helped to >clean up some of the legacy address issues? > >-----Original Message----- >From: Kim Hubbard [mailto:kimh at arin.net] >Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 11:34 AM >To: Sweeting, John; policy at arin.net >Subject: RE: transfer policy > > >At 07:59 AM 5/12/00 -0400, Sweeting, John wrote: >>Jason, >> >>I see your point more clearly now but it really was advantageous for me to >>do this because both companies had beaucoup legacy address space that had >>never been justified but due to the transfer now had to be. >>I could probably agree with you if both companies involved in a transfer >>owned nothing but ARIN justified address space that it could be a waste of >>time and resources to re-justify the space. I have no idea how many >>transfers today are in that category. My feeling is that this policy has >>helped to clean up some of the legacy address space issues that are out >>there. >> >>Kim, is there any statistics kept on this? or would any of your staff be >>able to make an educated swag? > >I'll look into it but I'm assuming most transfer requests involve at least >some legacy addresses. > >Kim > >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Jason Redisch [mailto:jredisch at virtela.com] >>Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 11:23 PM >>To: policy at arin.net >>Subject: RE: transfer policy >> >> >>John, >> >> Being able to distinguish known ISP to ISP transfers that both have >>an ARIN >>history vs. all other transfers has an advantage on its own by allowing >ARIN >>to dedicate more resources to unknown transfers. >> >> Other than that both MCI and C&W had already justified their address >>space >>to ARIN. During the transfer you had to show legal transfer and rejustify >>both ISP's address space even though both were already ARIN members. You >>also had a history of coming back to ARIN for IP space so if the >>justification was not completed then it is not like you would disappear off >>the face of the Earth. I see no reason why we as a community need to >waste >>your resources and ARIN's re-justifying both of the address pools in a >>merger like the one you went through. >> >> It is not a question of putting off something that needs to be >>justified. >>It is a question of spending time going through two justifications or just >>one. >> >>-Jason From danny at tcb.net Sat May 13 01:01:30 2000 From: danny at tcb.net (Danny McPherson) Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 23:01:30 -0600 Subject: transfer policy Message-ID: <200005130501.XAA09860@tcb.net> So if not with legacy issues, then what does it help with? And if with nothing, then providing it shouldn't be a problem? -danny > I wouldn't say that justification itself helps with the legacy issues. > From kimh at arin.net Mon May 15 09:49:51 2000 From: kimh at arin.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 09:49:51 -0400 Subject: transfer policy In-Reply-To: <200005130501.XAA09860@tcb.net> Message-ID: <4.1.20000515094126.00db7e70@192.149.252.141> Well, one reason we ask for utilization of the addresses is so that if it's not being utilized efficiently (or at all which is true in some cases) we can ask for it to be returned or traded for a smaller block. There have been quite a few cases where a /16 was transfered with a network consisting of 300 hosts. We always try to talk the organization into getting a smaller block but we don't have the authority right now to demand they do so. It's also important that we know the organization that's receiving the addresses knows exactly what they have. With all of the consolidation going on it's clear that a lot of organizations don't even know what they're buying. They have no idea how addresses are being utilized in some cases so by asking for utilization it helps everyone in the long run. Kim At 11:01 PM 5/12/00 -0600, Danny McPherson wrote: > >So if not with legacy issues, then what does it help with? > >And if with nothing, then providing it shouldn't be a problem? > >-danny > >> I wouldn't say that justification itself helps with the legacy issues. >> From danny at tcb.net Mon May 15 10:26:43 2000 From: danny at tcb.net (Danny McPherson) Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 08:26:43 -0600 Subject: transfer policy Message-ID: <200005151426.IAA19963@tcb.net> > Well, one reason we ask for utilization of the addresses is so that if it's > not being utilized efficiently (or at all which is true in some cases) we > can ask for it to be returned or traded for a smaller block. There have > been quite a few cases where a /16 was transfered with a network consisting > of 300 hosts. We always try to talk the organization into getting a > smaller block but we don't have the authority right now to demand they do so. This certainly makes sense. > It's also important that we know the organization that's receiving the > addresses knows exactly what they have. With all of the consolidation > going on it's clear that a lot of organizations don't even know what > they're buying. They have no idea how addresses are being utilized in some > cases so by asking for utilization it helps everyone in the long run. And this was my initial point. -danny From jredisch at virtela.com Tue May 16 23:53:45 2000 From: jredisch at virtela.com (jredisch) Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 20:53:45 -0700 Subject: transfer policy In-Reply-To: <200005151426.IAA19963@tcb.net> Message-ID: Danny and All, Pre merger there is a quiet period where the two sides are not allowed to share engineering information. The transfer of space may be a high priority to the company to show they are 'just one company now'. A transfer request may go in before all of the info below is known and certainly before major engineering decisions are made about how to merge the two networks. If we allow the transfer to happen day one with proof of merger, we give the two companies more time to gather this info and they can interface with ARIN the next time they need space. I see no reason to take up engineering resources on both sides twice in a period of less than three months. This makes life more difficult for all involved. As a member of the ARIN community I trust two ISP's with a history with ARIN to justify the space from the merger at the next time they go in to request IP space for the now primary maintainer ID. Simultaneously, while putting ISP to ISP transfers with history in a different classification I would be in favor of dedicating the saved resources on the ARIN side to looking at the other transfers closer to make sure they are legitimate. -Jason -----Original Message----- From: policy-request at arin.net [mailto:policy-request at arin.net]On Behalf Of Danny McPherson Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 7:27 AM To: policy at arin.net Subject: Re: transfer policy > Well, one reason we ask for utilization of the addresses is so that if it's > not being utilized efficiently (or at all which is true in some cases) we > can ask for it to be returned or traded for a smaller block. There have > been quite a few cases where a /16 was transfered with a network consisting > of 300 hosts. We always try to talk the organization into getting a > smaller block but we don't have the authority right now to demand they do so. This certainly makes sense. > It's also important that we know the organization that's receiving the > addresses knows exactly what they have. With all of the consolidation > going on it's clear that a lot of organizations don't even know what > they're buying. They have no idea how addresses are being utilized in some > cases so by asking for utilization it helps everyone in the long run. And this was my initial point. -danny From kimh at arin.net Tue May 16 11:14:19 2000 From: kimh at arin.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 11:14:19 -0400 Subject: transfer policy References: Message-ID: <004601bfbf49$6a3d8e00$ccfc95c0@arin.net> Jason, While I understand your reasoning below, I am concerned that we will give the perception of not treating organizations equally. Do you think it's fair to have one set of rules for those orgs that ARIN knows and a different set for those we don't? Kim ----- Original Message ----- From: jredisch To: Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 11:53 PM Subject: RE: transfer policy > Danny and All, > Pre merger there is a quiet period where the two sides are not allowed to > share engineering information. The transfer of space may be a high > priority to the company to show they are 'just one company now'. A transfer > request may go in before all of the info below is known and certainly before > major engineering decisions are made about how to merge the two networks. > If we allow the transfer to happen day one with proof of merger, we give the > two companies more time to gather this info and they can interface with ARIN > the next time they need space. I see no reason to take up engineering > resources on both sides twice in a period of less than three months. This > makes life more difficult for all involved. As a member of the ARIN > community I trust two ISP's with a history with ARIN to justify the space > from the merger at the next time they go in to request IP space for the now > primary maintainer ID. > > Simultaneously, while putting ISP to ISP transfers with history in a > different classification I would be in favor of dedicating the saved > resources on the ARIN side to looking at the other transfers closer to make > sure they are legitimate. > > -Jason > > > -----Original Message----- > From: policy-request at arin.net [mailto:policy-request at arin.net]On Behalf > Of Danny McPherson > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 7:27 AM > To: policy at arin.net > Subject: Re: transfer policy > > > > > > Well, one reason we ask for utilization of the addresses is so that if > it's > > not being utilized efficiently (or at all which is true in some cases) we > > can ask for it to be returned or traded for a smaller block. There have > > been quite a few cases where a /16 was transfered with a network > consisting > > of 300 hosts. We always try to talk the organization into getting a > > smaller block but we don't have the authority right now to demand they do > so. > > This certainly makes sense. > > > It's also important that we know the organization that's receiving the > > addresses knows exactly what they have. With all of the consolidation > > going on it's clear that a lot of organizations don't even know what > > they're buying. They have no idea how addresses are being utilized in > some > > cases so by asking for utilization it helps everyone in the long run. > > And this was my initial point. > > -danny > > From smarcus at genuity.com Tue May 16 11:33:04 2000 From: smarcus at genuity.com (Scott Marcus) Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 11:33:04 -0400 Subject: transfer policy In-Reply-To: <004601bfbf49$6a3d8e00$ccfc95c0@arin.net> References: Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20000516113304.00a24810@pobox3.genuity.com> At 11:14 05/16/2000 -0400, Kim Hubbard wrote: >Jason, > >While I understand your reasoning below, I am concerned that we will give >the perception of not treating organizations equally. Do you think it's >fair to have one set of rules for those orgs that ARIN knows and a different >set for those we don't? > >Kim > >----- Original Message ----- >From: jredisch >To: >Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 11:53 PM >Subject: RE: transfer policy > > >> Danny and All, >> Pre merger there is a quiet period where the two sides are not allowed to >> share engineering information. The transfer of space may be a high >> priority to the company to show they are 'just one company now'. A >transfer >> request may go in before all of the info below is known and certainly >before >> major engineering decisions are made about how to merge the two networks. >> If we allow the transfer to happen day one with proof of merger, we give >the >> two companies more time to gather this info and they can interface with >ARIN >> the next time they need space. I see no reason to take up engineering >> resources on both sides twice in a period of less than three months. This >> makes life more difficult for all involved. As a member of the ARIN >> community I trust two ISP's with a history with ARIN to justify the space >> from the merger at the next time they go in to request IP space for the >now >> primary maintainer ID. >> >> Simultaneously, while putting ISP to ISP transfers with history in a >> different classification I would be in favor of dedicating the saved >> resources on the ARIN side to looking at the other transfers closer to >make >> sure they are legitimate... Jason, this is an interesting idea, but the more I read this thread, the less convinced I am that the potential benefits warrant the cost and hassle. It seems to me that defining rigorous criteria for who falls within the scope of this carve-out and who does not might be complex. And having been through some merger and acquisition situations myself, it also seems to me that the level of effort in transferring address space is in a comparative sense an inconsequential speck in an ocean of paperwork. I'm not persuaded that this proposal saves anybody enough work to be worth the added complexity. Anyway, that's my two cents. Cheers, - Scott From jredisch at virtela.com Wed May 17 02:03:25 2000 From: jredisch at virtela.com (jredisch) Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 23:03:25 -0700 Subject: transfer policy In-Reply-To: <004601bfbf49$6a3d8e00$ccfc95c0@arin.net> Message-ID: All, The problem I see is that entities with no history are running through a transfer process that needs to be tightened overall. This will have a cost impact in time and resources on both the 'customers' of ARIN and on ARIN resources. I would much rather see the ARIN resources dedicated to preventing actions being taken by groups that may never deal with ARIN again vs. entities that I trust. I am defining 'trust' as someone who will have to come back in the next few months anyway. This can be documented and built into a policy. We have different fees and policies for ISP's vs. end users anyway so I do not think this change is any more unequal. It is based on the fact that while all people who deal with ARIN have similar needs in that they require IP addresses, there are in fact a very diverse group of entities in the memebrship. It is fair to treat the organizations differently time wise as long as they all have to meet the same criteria in the end in my opinion. -Jason -----Original Message----- From: policy-request at arin.net [mailto:policy-request at arin.net]On Behalf Of Kim Hubbard Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 8:14 AM To: jredisch at virtela.com; policy at arin.net Subject: Re: transfer policy Jason, While I understand your reasoning below, I am concerned that we will give the perception of not treating organizations equally. Do you think it's fair to have one set of rules for those orgs that ARIN knows and a different set for those we don't? Kim ----- Original Message ----- From: jredisch To: Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 11:53 PM Subject: RE: transfer policy > Danny and All, > Pre merger there is a quiet period where the two sides are not allowed to > share engineering information. The transfer of space may be a high > priority to the company to show they are 'just one company now'. A transfer > request may go in before all of the info below is known and certainly before > major engineering decisions are made about how to merge the two networks. > If we allow the transfer to happen day one with proof of merger, we give the > two companies more time to gather this info and they can interface with ARIN > the next time they need space. I see no reason to take up engineering > resources on both sides twice in a period of less than three months. This > makes life more difficult for all involved. As a member of the ARIN > community I trust two ISP's with a history with ARIN to justify the space > from the merger at the next time they go in to request IP space for the now > primary maintainer ID. > > Simultaneously, while putting ISP to ISP transfers with history in a > different classification I would be in favor of dedicating the saved > resources on the ARIN side to looking at the other transfers closer to make > sure they are legitimate. > > -Jason > > > -----Original Message----- > From: policy-request at arin.net [mailto:policy-request at arin.net]On Behalf > Of Danny McPherson > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 7:27 AM > To: policy at arin.net > Subject: Re: transfer policy > > > > > > Well, one reason we ask for utilization of the addresses is so that if > it's > > not being utilized efficiently (or at all which is true in some cases) we > > can ask for it to be returned or traded for a smaller block. There have > > been quite a few cases where a /16 was transfered with a network > consisting > > of 300 hosts. We always try to talk the organization into getting a > > smaller block but we don't have the authority right now to demand they do > so. > > This certainly makes sense. > > > It's also important that we know the organization that's receiving the > > addresses knows exactly what they have. With all of the consolidation > > going on it's clear that a lot of organizations don't even know what > > they're buying. They have no idea how addresses are being utilized in > some > > cases so by asking for utilization it helps everyone in the long run. > > And this was my initial point. > > -danny > > From danny at tcb.net Tue May 16 14:24:57 2000 From: danny at tcb.net (Danny McPherson) Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 12:24:57 -0600 Subject: transfer policy Message-ID: <200005161824.MAA28397@tcb.net> > Pre merger there is a quiet period where the two sides are not allowed to > share engineering information. The transfer of space may be a high > priority to the company to show they are 'just one company now'. A transfer > request may go in before all of the info below is known and certainly before > major engineering decisions are made about how to merge the two networks. > If we allow the transfer to happen day one with proof of merger, we give the > two companies more time to gather this info and they can interface with ARIN > the next time they need space. I see no reason to take up engineering > resources on both sides twice in a period of less than three months. This > makes life more difficult for all involved. As a member of the ARIN > community I trust two ISP's with a history with ARIN to justify the space > from the merger at the next time they go in to request IP space for the now > primary maintainer ID. Attempting to perform this transfer before that quiet period would most definitely violate that rules associated with that quiet period. IANAL, but the whole reasoning behind the quiet period (formally known as the HSR Act) is to keep the two companies from sharing information or performig actions that could put either at a disadvantage if the merger falls through. As for this "History with ARIN" thing, well, since being a member for a year, month, or even day could be defined as history, I think it's clearly a rathole altogether. -danny From danny at tcb.net Tue May 16 14:28:54 2000 From: danny at tcb.net (Danny McPherson) Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 12:28:54 -0600 Subject: transfer policy Message-ID: <200005161828.MAA28513@tcb.net> The problem with what you suggest it that it clearly requires ARIN to provide preferential treatment to some subset of it's customers. I for one don't believe that's something ARIN wants to do. -danny > The problem I see is that entities with no history are running through a > transfer process that needs to be tightened overall. This will have a cost > impact in time and resources on both the 'customers' of ARIN and on ARIN > resources. I would much rather see the ARIN resources dedicated to > preventing actions being taken by groups that may never deal with ARIN again > vs. entities that I trust. I am defining 'trust' as someone who will have > to come back in the next few months anyway. This can be documented and > built into a policy. We have different fees and policies for ISP's vs. end > users anyway so I do not think this change is any more unequal. It is based > on the fact that while all people who deal with ARIN have similar needs in > that they require IP addresses, there are in fact a very diverse group of > entities in the memebrship. It is fair to treat the organizations > differently time wise as long as they all have to meet the same criteria in > the end in my opinion. > From jredisch at virtela.com Wed May 17 13:54:39 2000 From: jredisch at virtela.com (jredisch) Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 11:54:39 -0600 Subject: transfer policy In-Reply-To: <200005161828.MAA28513@tcb.net> Message-ID: Danny, I agree that preferential treatment is something that cannot be tolerated. That is why I am saying that the same justification needs to be checked at the three month point. The goal of address allocation should be to only have a company have to work with the parent registry every three months. This is even in RFC 2050 in a way by the timeframe address space is to be allocated. per rfc 2050 ' Additional address allocations will provide enough address space to enable the ISP to assign addresses for three months without requesting additional address space from its parent registry. ' Before you respond I know that this does not say anything about transfers. I am mentioning it because the goal of the RFC and the registry was not to unduly burden the ISP's and the registry by having them work together every month on allocation issues. The current system could have an ISP get a transfer one month and come back a month later for an allocation request. If anything is unfair it would be making ISP's have to dedicated more resources to IP related issues. If we could identify a method of allowing ISP's to combine the transfer justification and their next allocation I feel that would be more fair than the current solution. I realize that identifying ISP's with a history is a rathole discussion. I have a few ideas that might work, but only want to start that discussion if people feel that the resources saved is worth the added complexity of the policy. -Jason -----Original Message----- From: policy-request at arin.net [mailto:policy-request at arin.net]On Behalf Of Danny McPherson Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 12:29 PM To: policy at arin.net Subject: Re: transfer policy The problem with what you suggest it that it clearly requires ARIN to provide preferential treatment to some subset of it's customers. I for one don't believe that's something ARIN wants to do. -danny > The problem I see is that entities with no history are running through a > transfer process that needs to be tightened overall. This will have a cost > impact in time and resources on both the 'customers' of ARIN and on ARIN > resources. I would much rather see the ARIN resources dedicated to > preventing actions being taken by groups that may never deal with ARIN again > vs. entities that I trust. I am defining 'trust' as someone who will have > to come back in the next few months anyway. This can be documented and > built into a policy. We have different fees and policies for ISP's vs. end > users anyway so I do not think this change is any more unequal. It is based > on the fact that while all people who deal with ARIN have similar needs in > that they require IP addresses, there are in fact a very diverse group of > entities in the memebrship. It is fair to treat the organizations > differently time wise as long as they all have to meet the same criteria in > the end in my opinion. > From aesop7 at kornet.net Tue May 23 22:00:09 2000 From: aesop7 at kornet.net (=?Windows-1252?B?scfFwr3E?=) Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 11:00:09 +0900 Subject: With best regards Message-ID: <000801bfc523$cb221940$6bdc8680@kornet.net> This is just for your information that there might be some solution to the present condition of "domain jam" and we covet your noble opinion on our following suggestion about solving the problem. Someone has just responded telling: This is revolutionary! Frankly spoken, I never thought of this. Are you interested in licensing this idea? Here is the message that we sent him and others over the world: Hello. First forgive me for my poor English. This is just to tell you about constructive suggestions to solve the problem of domain-naming which at present is nearly on the verge of explosion. We have explained all about it at our website on the menu of DOMAIN NAMING: www.gkgkgk.com. One of them, for example, is to put in order alphabets and arabic numerals right in front of and behind the so-called super-keywords such as domain, trade, flower, tv, internet, shop, wine, etc. and in this way we are able to produce more than 2,000~50,000 domains as related with "wine", for example. This we call "self search-engined domains", because the visitors are just to click the "wine" sites one by one in alphabetical or/and numerical orders. Please look and see what we are going to tell you about ... www.gkgkgk.com. on the menu "DOMAIN NAMING." We are sending this message to various registrars all over the world including ICANN. With best regards, Kwon Tayseek aesop7 at kornet.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aesop7 at kornet.net Thu May 25 22:32:22 2000 From: aesop7 at kornet.net (=?ks_c_5601-1987?B?scfFwr3E?=) Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 11:32:22 +0900 Subject: Resending message Message-ID: <018b01bfc6ba$9f963020$3bdc8680@kornet.net> We resend this message since some recipients complain that we should send our message in plain (clear) text, ASCII. No HTML, or other encoding, and we are much afraid that our first message never reached you. The following is the first message sent to you. *********************************** ----- Original Message ----- From: Kwon Tayseek Subject: With best regards This is just for your information that there might be some solution to the present condition of "domain jam" and we covet your noble opinion on our suggestion to solve the problem as it shows in the following. Someone overseas has enthusiastically responded to it by telling: This is revolutionary! Frankly spoken, I never thought of this. Are you interested in licensing this idea? Here is the message that we sent him and others over the world: Hello. First forgive me for my poor English. This is just to tell you about constructive suggestions to solve the problem of domain-naming which at present is nearly on the verge of explosion. We have explained all about it at our website on the menu of DOMAIN NAMING: www.gkgkgk.com. One of them, for example, is to put in order alphabets and arabic numerals right in front of and behind the so-called super-keywords such as domain, trade, flower, tv, internet, shop, bank, game, business, wine, etc. and in this way we are able to produce more than 2,000~50,000 domains(yes, almost unlimitedly as related with "wine", for example. This we call "self search-engined domains", because the visitors are just to click the "wine" sites one by one in alphabetical or/and numerical orders and also at random. (not necessarily beginning from 1,2,3...or a,b,c...but at random because they well know there are thousands and thousands of domains of the same category which adop this idea). This kind of domain-fom itself works as a sort of CLASSIFIED ADS. Please look and see what we are going to tell you about ... www.gkgkgk.com. on the menu "DOMAIN NAMING." We are sending this message to various registrars all over the world including ICANN. With best regards, Kwon Tayseek(Mr.) aesop7 at kornet.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From khuon at gblx.net Tue May 30 18:11:40 2000 From: khuon at gblx.net (Jake Khuon) Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 15:11:40 -0700 Subject: declassified Global Crossing RAR proposal In-Reply-To: "Michael O'Neill"'s message of Fri, 12 May 2000 15:18:28 -0400. <200005121918.PAA01363@ops.arin.net> Message-ID: <200005302211.PAA03795@NEEBU.Net> ### On Fri, 12 May 2000 15:18:28 -0400 (EDT), "Michael O'Neill" ### casually decided to expound upon khuon at GCtr.Net the ### following thoughts about "Re: declassified Global Crossing RAR ### proposal": MO> | The following is a for-public-consumption version of a proposal I MO> | made to my internal management team. This should give you an idea MO> | of the the goals we're trying to achieve within our organisation MO> | with regards to routing and allaocation databases. MO> MO> After Richard's AfriNIC trip, he and I reviewed your documents this MO> past week. He suggested you bring your ideas/proposals to submit to MO> both the policy at arin.net and the dbwg at arin.net groups. Both of these MO> lists have people who would benefit not only from learning about MO> Global Crossing's RAR plans, but also in using the information to MO> guide ARIN's decisions about interoperating with other RPSL servers. Thanks Michael. I'll go ahead and do that now. I'm copying both mailing lists on this message. Rather than include a huge annoying MS-Word doc, I'll just provide a pointer to an HTML'ised version. It can be found at: http://www.neebu.net/~khuon/rar/rar-proposal.html -- /*====================[ Jake Khuon ]======================+ | Network Systems Engineer, Net-Eng/NSM-Arch /~_ |_ () |3 /-\ |_ | | VOX: +1 (408) 543-4828 Fax: +1 (408) 543-0074 \_| C R O S S I N G | +===============[ 141 Caspian Court, Sunnyvale, CA 94089 ]===============*/