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: fee structure (John Curran)
2. Re: fee structure (William Herrin)
3. Re: fee structure (William Herrin)
4. Re: fee structure (McTim)
5. Re: fee structure (John Curran)
6. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(William Herrin)
7. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(William Herrin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:40:37 +0000
From: John Curran <[email protected]>
To: Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] fee structure
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Mar 29, 2013, at 12:48 PM, Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Personally, I'd be more than happy to have my resource listings (all of them
> legacy) removed from the ARIN registry, as long as all of the RIRs can
> promise to not allocate the same numbers to someone else. Then I could
> publish my own listing of who is using those resources, or band together with
> other legacy holders to do so in a coordinated fashion, and not be bound by
> ARIN policy when I decide to change those listings.
> ...
Matthew -
You are actually discussing the structure of a _single_ registry system
(it needs to be a single coordinated registry system to keep numbers unique)
which is known as the Internet Registry System and was originally documented
in RFC 2050.
You can find more details on its present structure and processes for adding
registries in ICANN ICP-2:
<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/global-addressing/new-rirs-criteria>
but that does not cover ad-hoc or non-geographic registries as you outlined,
and would be change which affects on parties other than just yourself (i.e.
ISPs, law enforcement, network abuse desks, geolocation providers, etc.)
I imagine that there are many other possible models that could be considered
(such as registries with overlapping service areas, registry/registrar split
models, etc.) but it would take consensus on a specific global policy to
change the existing structure. Some of these topics regarding the structure
of the Internet Registry system came up at the ICANN meeting in Toronto; I am
not aware if there are any follow-up activities planned for future meetings.
FYI,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 13:44:11 -0400
From: William Herrin <[email protected]>
To: John Curran <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] fee structure
Message-ID:
<CAP-guGV1ED5W3tmvqWkG1H3dw5NbKyJfGrdcSTwaa=a7vag...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 12:45 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
> Would it not be appropriate that an organization that wishes
> to participate as a member pay its share of ARIN costs which
> are currently borne by the remaining ~4100 members?
Hi John,
It would be appropriate for ISPs and End-users to have identical
standing before ARIN, in number policy, in membership and in fees.
That is not the case and is not on the table.
Under the pending fee schedule, annual end-user fees increase.
Typically by double with the expectation that IPv6 deployment will
result in the fees tripling. At least some ISP fees go down. Is it not
appropriate, then, that end users' standing before ARIN improve while
ISPs' standing deteriorates in comparable measure?
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected]
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 13:48:24 -0400
From: William Herrin <[email protected]>
To: Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] fee structure
Message-ID:
<cap-gugu3-pyt7thjuu4a_9z9zdbyjougasozn-iz77ogscr...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sure, but that's not the registry that (at least some) legacy resource
> holders want to be listed in. There is no reason why legacy holders couldn't
> have been listed in a separate registry with separate governance, just as
> the other regions are separate from ARIN's registry.
Hi Matthew,
With ARIN's current policy for inter-registry transfers, that would be
most entertaining.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected]
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:55:37 -0400
From: McTim <[email protected]>
To: Mike Burns <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], Mike Burns <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] fee structure
Message-ID:
<CACAaNxhoJ4tkB6Aqbg3eVoRYZX152=encc774up4ct4ca8m...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Mike Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I consider myself both "well informed" and "interested in participating"
>> but by either measure my vote is precluded unless and until I sign a
>> contract with ARIN legally granting them the authority they already assert.
>> Heck I practically wrote the ARIN 8.3 section but couldn't even vote on it.
>
>
> Mike -
>
> While ARIN does encourage legacy address holders to enter into a
> registration service agreement, you are not required to do so and
> in either case, it does not affect ARIN's authority to operate the
> registry in accordance with the policy developed by the community
> in this region (and a process which you do have the ability to
> participate in in either case.)
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
>
> Hi John,
>
> Thanks for the reply and sorry my initial post didn't make it to the list.
> But to be clear, despite my possession of address rights that preceded
> ARIN's existence, I do not have the right to vote on policy which affects
> the registration of those rights unless and until I cede authority to ARIN
> via a contractual arrangement.
AFAIK, folk involved in resource policy making don't "vote" on the
policies, it is done by consensus.
Voting comes into play when Members are asked about specific
activities and decision about how their association is run.
They are two separate processes.
Please inform me if the above is incorrect, as I am more familiar with
other RIRs structure and operations than with ARIN.
--
Cheers,
McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
ps there are 2 email addresses yoou seem to be using, perhaps one
isn't subscribed?
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:57:56 +0000
From: John Curran <[email protected]>
To: William Herrin <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected] PPML" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] fee structure
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Mar 29, 2013, at 1:44 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> It would be appropriate for ISPs and End-users to have identical
> standing before ARIN, in number policy, in membership and in fees.
> That is not the case and is not on the table.
Bill -
With the revised fee schedule, we're actually getting a lot closer to that
outcome ("identical standing before ARIN, in number policy, in membership
and in fees") than we were before, and it's certainly a possible to take
that next step in the future, if the members desire such. (Note - I believe
it would result in a significant increase in end-user fees, but it really
does depend on how the distribution of costs is accomplished.)
Feel free to propose it as a future refinement; you can send it to the
ARIN Suggestion Process <https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/acsp.html>
or to the ARIN Board of Trustees as you feel appropriate.
Thanks!
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 13:59:05 -0400
From: William Herrin <[email protected]>
To: David Farmer <[email protected]>
Cc: ARIN PPML <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID:
<CAP-guGUofR-Xgzd2fVw1ANnjt0OLfLRo4CH=g1rkcnoeph7...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 9:10 PM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3/28/13 18:04 , William Herrin wrote:
>> "6.5.2.1(b): In no case shall an LIR receive smaller than a /32
>> allocation unless they specifically request a /36 or /40. In no case
>> shall an ISP receive more than a /16 initial allocation.
>>
> 6.5.2.1(g): An LIR that requested a /36 or /40 initial allocation is
> entitled to increase said allocation's size to /36 or /32. This change is
> not a subsequent allocation as described in 6.5.3. Additionally, a minimum
> of a /32 will be reserved for all such LIRs to facilitate this expansion.
Hi David,
Isn't that last line business process rather than number policy? The
first line effectively requires ARIN to reserve or take some other
action to keep the full /32 available for the LIR's expansion. But the
last line dictates how: by explicitly reserving the space.
>> 2. If we're willing to give an ISP voting membership in ARIN for a
>> total fee package of $500/year, fairness dictates that we do the same
>> for end users... not the $800 that an end user holding one IPv4 block,
>> one IPv6 block and one AS number would be called on to pay.
>
> This is defiantly an issue and I support changes to fix it, but it is not
> related to the IPv6 assignment or allocation policies and is not a subject
> for the PDP.
Ordinarily I'd agree with you, but in this instance you propose
designing number policy around an issue that appears in the billing
policy. That brings billing policy (and our expectations thereof) into
scope when determining whether the change to number policy is
appropriate, does it not?
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected]
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:03:34 -0400
From: William Herrin <[email protected]>
To: Brandon Ross <[email protected]>
Cc: ARIN PPML <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID:
<CAP-guGXmZ=j_5forpcq_grfpxj7pom8-kzdxfuy2z3jdvzv...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Brandon Ross <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, David Farmer wrote:
>> 6.5.2.1(h): An LIR that received a /32 initial allocation before the
>> availability of the /36 and /40 initial allocation sizes is entitled to a
>> one-time decrease of their allocation size to /36 or /40. Such an LIR will
>> retain the first (lowest numbered) subnet or the last (highest numbered)
>> subnet of their original block.
>
> What benefit does it give the community to limit reduction in allocation
> size to only those that were issued earlier and only once? I am against
> that change as plenty of organizations may make initial errors in their
> allocation requests and might want to move back to a smaller size later.
Would this be acceptable then?
6.5.2.1(h): An LIR that received an initial allocation before the
availability of the /36 and /40 initial allocation sizes and holds
only that single IPv6 allocation is entitled to a one-time decrease of
their allocation size to /36 or /40. Such an LIR will retain the
first (lowest numbered) subnet or the last (highest numbered) subnet
of their original block.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected]
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 93, Issue 27
*****************************************
