Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: ARIN-prop-183 Section 8.4 Transfer enhancement
(Martin Hannigan)
2. ARIN Board and Advisory Council Online Voting underway now...
(John Curran)
3. Re: ARIN-prop-183 Section 8.4 Transfer enhancement (Ron Grant)
4. Re: ARIN-prop-183 Section 8.4 Transfer enhancement (Michael Burns)
5. Re: ARIN-prop-183 Section 8.4 Transfer enhancement (Ron Grant)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:05:48 -0400
From: Martin Hannigan <[email protected]>
To: David Farmer <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-183 Section 8.4 Transfer
enhancement
Message-ID:
<camdxq5ob5mzdhpmdfwikw_fx_kik11pwra-tsywb2xm5csd...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:01 AM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10/30/12 09:09 , Michael Burns wrote:
>>
>> Support. The process has been shown to work for address space.
>>
>> Mike Burns
>
>
> I'm not fundamentally opposed to Inter-RIR transfers of ASNs. However, I
> would like to know that their is actually interest from at least one other
> RIR to develop the reciprocal policy necessary to make this a functional
> policy. Otherwise this is purely an intellectual exercise, and I believe we
> have enough other things to do without taking on purely intellectual
> exercises.
>
> I'm not aware of any of the other RIRs even having policy for local transfer
> of ASNs in the works, let alone Inter-RIR transfers of ASNs. So, I'd propose
> taking this on the docket, but not doing any work on it until we see some
> work on the issue in one of the other RIRs, if no work is started in one of
> the other RIRs within a policy cycle or two then I would suggest we abandon
> it.
>
We saw that with regional ASN transfers that once you provided the
mechanism, it was utilized. We knew the demand was there since many
knew of the quite public secret that ASN's were traded on a regular
basis. I'm not sure how someone could assert that this wasn't also
happening internationally.
Section 5 of the APNIC inter-rir transfer might be interpreted to
accommodate this type of transfer as well as RIPE 2012-7 since it
doesn't differentiate a legacy "internet resource". I can't speak for
the policy proposers in the RIPE region and nor do I pretend to, but
in the latter case, it's possible that we don't need this proposal at
all since theoretically, the RIPE region proposal (if adopted) clearly
states the definition of a legacy resources as prior to the creation
of the RIPE NCC and does not differentiate between ASN's and IP
addresses. One might also assume that based on the language you might
be able to bring your resource directly to the RIPE NCC, get their
services agreement which if adopted would be much more conducive to
retaining the value of a resource, and simply register the transfer
there.
Making it "easy" to utilize ARIN's process, even if it turns out to be
inferior to other regions, has value. It makes a transfer cheaper for
one thing and instills a level of trust on the part of a US based
transferee since familiarity with a legal system is part of that trust
mechanism. It also insures that the supply of ASN's is efficiently
used and that the all important registry is updated and as accurate as
possible. I thought the latter part was the important bit to be
honest.
Best,
-M<
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:18:06 +0000
From: John Curran <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected] PPML" <[email protected]>
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Board and Advisory Council Online Voting
underway now...
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Reminder - ARIN Board and Advisory Council elections are underway (see attached)
If you are the Designated Member Representative for your organization, please
take a
moment to go online at <https://www.arin.net/app/election/> and vote!
Thanks!
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
Begin forwarded message:
From: ARIN <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: [arin-announce] ARIN Board and Advisory Council Online Voting Begins
Today
Date: October 24, 2012 5:01:03 PM EDT
To: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
The polls open today at 5:00 PM ET for the election to fill three seats
on the ARIN Board of Trustees and six seats on the ARIN Advisory
Council. The sixth seat on the ARIN AC is a vacated seat with a term of
one year remaining. The candidate with the sixth highest count of votes
for the ARIN AC will fill this sixth seat. The polls close at 5:00 PM
ET, 3 November.
Brief candidate biographies and a link to submit or view statements of
support can be found through ARIN Election Headquarters. A compilation
of Candidate questionnaire responses in PDF is available at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/elections/candidate_bios.pdf
You must be the Designated Member Representative (DMR) from a general
Member in good standing as of 25 August 2012 to vote. As stated in
previous announcements, the deadline for establishing voter eligibility
was 10 October 2012. To vote, visit ARIN Election Headquarters and click
on the Vote button: https://www.arin.net/app/election/
Detailed voting instructions are available at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/elections/instructions.html#vote
Designated member representatives must cast and confirm their ballots by
5:00 PM ET, 3 November.
If you have any questions about voting or encounter problems with the
system, please immediately contact ARIN Communication and Member
Services at [email protected].
Regards,
Communication and Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
_______________________________________________
ARIN-Announce
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Announce Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-announce
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20121030/2b96ad23/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 09:44:51 -0700
From: Ron Grant <[email protected]>
To: Michael Burns <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-183 Section 8.4 Transfer
enhancement
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
I disagree with the proposal, which as it stands attempts to conflate
"IPv4 address resources" with Autonomous System Numbers.
I don't think that the transfers have anything to do with each other,
and shouldn't be governed by the same principles. The language "IPv4
number resources and ASNs" suggests that some ASNs are "IPv4" and some
are not.
IPv4 addresses are a legacy resource in exceedingly short and dwindling
supply, which cannot easily be replaced by IPv6 addresses (regardless of
our desire to do so). They are also amenable to aggregation. And they'll
eventually go away.
ASNs are NOT in short supply. A 4-byte ASN means we have room in the
world for...uh...4 billion ISPs and multi-homers? Is that right? (wow,
talk about competition!). And ASN aggregation is meaningless, so
"efficient utilization" isn't really a desirable goal.
From what my attention-addled brain gathers, the ASN transfer market is
about "vanity numbers" - i.e. low 2-byte or memorable ASNs. If there's
really a need for Inter-RIR transfers of vanity numbers, by all means
let's create a proposal in conjunction with other RIRs - but adding them
to the existing IPv4 transfer policy is jut going to make discussions
about the transfer policy more difficult. It will also make sunsetting
said policies in an IPv6 world impossible, since 4-byte ASNs will be
with us for MUCH longer than IPv4 addresses.
On 12-10-30 7:09 AM, Michael Burns wrote:
> Support. The process has been shown to work for address space.
>
> Mike Burns
>
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: ARIN Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012
> 4:15 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-183
> Section 8.4 Transfer enhancement
> ARIN-prop-183 Section 8.4 Transfer enhancement
>
> ARIN received the following policy proposal.
>
> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review the proposal at their next
> regularly scheduled meeting (if the period before the next regularly
> scheduled meeting is less than 10 days, then the period may be extended
> to the subsequent regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how
> to utilize the proposal and announce the decision to the PPML.
>
> The AC invites everyone to comment on the proposal on the PPML,
> particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning
> behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough
> vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations.
>
> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
>
> The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>
> Mailing list subscription information can be found
> at:https://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/
>
> Regards,
>
> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
> ## * ##
>
>
> ARIN-prop-183 Section 8.4 Transfer enhancement
>
> Proposal Originator: Martin Hannigan
>
> Proposal Version: 1.0
>
> Date: 29 October 2012
>
> Proposal type: MODIFY
>
> Policy term: PERMANENT
>
> Policy statement:
>
> Modify the following text in Section 8.4
>
> Change all occurrences of "IPv4 number resources" to "IPv4 number
> resources and ASNs".
> Change all occurrences of "IPv4 address resources" to "IPv4 number
> resources and ASNs".
>
> Rationale:
>
> We already allow transfer of ASNs within the ARIN region. The change
> will accomplish two things. First there is inconsistent language in
> 8.4 eg "IPv4 Address" v. "IPv4 Number Resource(s)" and second, it will
> allow the transfer of ASNs between RIRs through 8.4 and using the
> standards we have already established for IPv4 transfers. For many of
> the same reasons that we allow transfer of IP addresses, we should
> allow transfers of ASNs and to help insure that idle resources are
> both recovered and utilized efficiently and where needed.
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
--
Ron Grant Managed DSL/T1/Wireless/Fibre
Skyway West Business Internet Internet and Private Networking
[email protected] Bonding and Fail Over Solutions
ph: 604 737 2113 Virtual Data Centre and Private Clouds
fax: 604 482 1299 http://www.skywaywest.com
Sales, Support and Billing http://www.skywaywest.com/contact-us.htm
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 13:14:41 -0400
From: "Michael Burns" <[email protected]>
To: "Ron Grant" <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-183 Section 8.4 Transfer
enhancement
Message-ID: <2B64E2A6FDCA4BF4A01DA0DBD437782B@MPC>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response
Hi Ron,
You have identified a distinction between ASNs and IPv4 addresses, but is it
really a difference?
What does it matter that the one is in short supply and the other isn't?
Both are resources used in the running of the Internet.
Both come from the same source.
Both are part of the all-important registry.
Both are items that holders are desirous of transferring.
What is the downside to taking a step towards registry accuracy?
Are we worried about speculation and hoarding of ASNs now?
Regards,
Mike Burns
IPTrading.com
Ron wrote:
I disagree with the proposal, which as it stands attempts to conflate
"IPv4 address resources" with Autonomous System Numbers.
I don't think that the transfers have anything to do with each other,
and shouldn't be governed by the same principles. The language "IPv4
number resources and ASNs" suggests that some ASNs are "IPv4" and some
are not.
IPv4 addresses are a legacy resource in exceedingly short and dwindling
supply, which cannot easily be replaced by IPv6 addresses (regardless of
our desire to do so). They are also amenable to aggregation. And they'll
eventually go away.
ASNs are NOT in short supply. A 4-byte ASN means we have room in the
world for...uh...4 billion ISPs and multi-homers? Is that right? (wow,
talk about competition!). And ASN aggregation is meaningless, so
"efficient utilization" isn't really a desirable goal.
>From what my attention-addled brain gathers, the ASN transfer market is
about "vanity numbers" - i.e. low 2-byte or memorable ASNs. If there's
really a need for Inter-RIR transfers of vanity numbers, by all means
let's create a proposal in conjunction with other RIRs - but adding them
to the existing IPv4 transfer policy is jut going to make discussions
about the transfer policy more difficult. It will also make sunsetting
said policies in an IPv6 world impossible, since 4-byte ASNs will be
with us for MUCH longer than IPv4 addresses.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:29:11 -0700
From: Ron Grant <[email protected]>
To: Michael Burns <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-183 Section 8.4 Transfer
enhancement
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
The proposal states two goals: to
- Correct inconsistent language in 8.4 eg "IPv4 Address" v. "IPv4 Number
Resource(s)"
which is a trivial change that I'm sure we'd all agree with, and to
- Allow the transfer of ASNs between RIRs
which, oddly, I am ALSO in favour of. If we allow it "intra" we should
allow it "inter".
I just don't think we should muddy the IPv4 transfer process with them.
Speculation and hoarding? Exactly! These ARE things we should be worried
about wrt IPv4 addresses, but NOT wrt ASNs. So if we start discussing
change to 8.4 to address hoarding issues, we shouldn't have to also
discuss making exceptions for ASNs, or complicating the language by
having to twist ourselves around it. I'll give long odds that we'll be
modifying 8.4 again and again over the years, and can you imagine the
extra work because of the one phrase: " and ASNs"?
If inter-RIR transfer of ASNs is a worthy goal, surely it deserves it's
own process, not just tacked onto the IPv4 process....?
On 12-10-30 10:14 AM, Michael Burns wrote:
> Hi Ron,
>
> You have identified a distinction between ASNs and IPv4 addresses, but
> is it really a difference?
> What does it matter that the one is in short supply and the other isn't?
>
> Both are resources used in the running of the Internet.
> Both come from the same source.
> Both are part of the all-important registry.
> Both are items that holders are desirous of transferring.
>
> What is the downside to taking a step towards registry accuracy?
> Are we worried about speculation and hoarding of ASNs now?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Burns
> IPTrading.com
>
>
>
>
> Ron wrote:
> I disagree with the proposal, which as it stands attempts to conflate
> "IPv4 address resources" with Autonomous System Numbers.
>
>
> I don't think that the transfers have anything to do with each other,
> and shouldn't be governed by the same principles. The language "IPv4
> number resources and ASNs" suggests that some ASNs are "IPv4" and some
> are not.
>
> IPv4 addresses are a legacy resource in exceedingly short and dwindling
> supply, which cannot easily be replaced by IPv6 addresses (regardless of
> our desire to do so). They are also amenable to aggregation. And they'll
> eventually go away.
>
> ASNs are NOT in short supply. A 4-byte ASN means we have room in the
> world for...uh...4 billion ISPs and multi-homers? Is that right? (wow,
> talk about competition!). And ASN aggregation is meaningless, so
> "efficient utilization" isn't really a desirable goal.
>
> From what my attention-addled brain gathers, the ASN transfer market is
> about "vanity numbers" - i.e. low 2-byte or memorable ASNs. If there's
> really a need for Inter-RIR transfers of vanity numbers, by all means
> let's create a proposal in conjunction with other RIRs - but adding them
> to the existing IPv4 transfer policy is jut going to make discussions
> about the transfer policy more difficult. It will also make sunsetting
> said policies in an IPv6 world impossible, since 4-byte ASNs will be
> with us for MUCH longer than IPv4 addresses.
>
>
>
>
--
Ron Grant Managed DSL/T1/Wireless/Fibre
Skyway West Business Internet Internet and Private Networking
[email protected] Bonding and Fail Over Solutions
ph: 604 737 2113 Virtual Data Centre and Private Clouds
fax: 604 482 1299 http://www.skywaywest.com
Sales, Support and Billing http://www.skywaywest.com/contact-us.htm
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 88, Issue 28
*****************************************
