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: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Brandon Ross)
2. Re: fee structure (Steven Ryerse)
3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
(Seth Mattinen)
4. Re: fee structure (John Curran)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 12:57:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ross <[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: <alpine.OSX.2.02.1303301253581.546@brugal>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013, David Farmer wrote:
> On 3/29/13 10:37 , Brandon Ross wrote:
>
> Unless you intended to create a generic ability to reduce your allocations
> that would apply to everyone and not just to the x-small and xx-small
> categories. But that wasn't explicitly clear, and I took it that it was
> intended to allow low end adjustments. I'd like other to weigh in on if
> there should be a generic ability to reduce your IPv6 allocation.
The policy statement reads:
"An LIR may return all or part of an allocation to ARIN..."
How is that not clear? This part of the policy, as written, allows for
the return of any allocation, and it was written that way on purpose.
--
Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 18:42:00 +0000
From: Steven Ryerse <[email protected]>
To: Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] fee structure
Message-ID:
<5b9e90747fa2974d91a54fcfa1b8ad12012f5a7...@eni-mail.eclipse-networks.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Unfortunately it is somewhat rare to see comments from legacy holders in this
forum even though I know a lot of them at least "listen" to postings here as
I've had several make comments to me off-line over time. I think comments from
legacy holders should be aired in this forum as their comments would make these
kinds of policy decisions better - even when philosophical issues come up like
is happening in the current discussions. ( I am a small legacy holder of one
/24.) Matthew makes some very valid points below and I think it would be wise
to take them into consideration and hopefully action. In my humble opinion his
most important point is that all of these rules are arbitrary. If you stand
back and look at all the quibbling going on about whether someone should be
able to get a /40 or a /36 or a /32 or a /whatever - it is easy to see that
"community" wishes to limit the assignment of IPv4 and even IPv6 resources for
their purposes - whatever they may be. All of thes
e conversations boil down to how best to LIMIT IP resources!
I've said many times and I'll keep saying it as long as I can breathe that
ARIN's mission is to ALLOCATE resources and not to find reasons NOT TO ALLOCATE
resources. IPv4 depletion being the justification be damned! The big elephant
in the room is that legacy holders are afraid of having their resources (and
thus their businesses and their missions) impacted by all of the community
policy discussions that are about somehow limiting resources or increasing fees
or whatever. Who can blame them for taking the stance that better to be
cautious and not sign anything that might give Arin any rights over them - just
in case the "community" which is by design unpredictable - decides to do
something harmful. My experience of applying for an IPv6 block in the Small
Category and being approved one month, and applying and being denied for the
current Minimum Size IPv4 block the next month - provides a real life
illustration of just how arbitrary Arin's rules really are. I should hav
e been approved for both or rejected for both! John said in his email to
David Farmer yesterday "ARIN is here to serve the community, so the normal
response to any request should be "Yes", unless there a clear reason (example,
potential impacts to other parties) that something should be prohibited by
policy". Obviously since I was approved for IPv6 and denied for IPv4, Arin
found a reason to say "No" to me rather than "Yes" for IPv4 because of some
arbitrary policy stemming from IPv4 depletion concerns. As I said IPv4
depletion be damned as it isn't Arin's Mission to NOT ALLOCATE even the Minimum
block to a party with need.
There should be NO LIMITS placed by Arin other than a simple justification of
the size of the requested block needed as we all obviously all don't need a /8.
Then Arin should ALLOCATE for a reasonable cost that covers Arin's bills. For
the record I have no problem paying a to make sure Arin's reasonable bills are
paid.
I'm sure I will get the obligatory email response from John about this email
(which I do think is good) but then my comments again will be ignored by this
community - and unfortunately all of the legacy holders will continue to be
cautious and stay away as long as they can. I applaud Mathew's attempt to
contribute here and the sanity he is trying to provide!
-1 This member is against the current changes as proposed because at least in
part it further restricts ALLOCATION of resources which I believe to be against
Arin's Mission.
Steven L Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA? 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax
? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
??????? Conquering Complex Networks?
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Matthew Kaufman
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 12:48 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] fee structure
On 3/29/2013 9:15 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2013, at 12:05 PM, Mike Burns <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> OK, so ARIN has been accused of having a poll tax mentality, lol.
>> Allow me to throw in the fact that legacy holders like me who did not sign
>> the LRSA do not have a vote, even though we have resources.
>> Resources over which ARIN asserts authority.
>>
>> So we have a form of "taxation without representation" which I call
>> "authority without representation".
>>
>> Why doesn't ARIN stick to asserting policy authority over those with which
>> it has a contract and who are allowed to vote?
>> Or how about letting legacy resource holders vote without a contract with
>> ARIN ?
>>
>> 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.)
>
>
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.
By listing them in ARIN's registry and enforcing ARIN's policies with regard to
(for instance) transfers (which are really just database updates in said
registry) ARIN took what some of us feel is authority over those entries that
it did not have, and yet because there is no legacy database in which to list
that the RIRs would recognize as far as uniqueness goes, we're all sorta stuck
with the situation.
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.
Right now, I don't have a contract with ARIN and yet ARIN insists on listing my
resources there and enforcing what are essentially arbitrary rules over what
changes I can make to those entries... and sure, it is ARIN's database and they
have that right, but the fact that so many others reference that database as
the "official" source of information does cause pain for me.
Matthew Kaufman
_______________________________________________
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.
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 14:07:35 -0700
From: Seth Mattinen <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6
Allocations for ISPs
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 3/29/13 2:43 PM, John Curran wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2013, at 5:31 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The idea is that an ISP receiving less than a /32 should *always* be
>> able to expand to a /32 without either renumbering or adding a
>> additional route to the public Internet. The loss of the balance of
>> that /32 is far preferable to either the challenge of renumbering or
>> the registry-driven addition of another BGP route.
>
> That could be the case (if the community decides accordingly), and
> it is simply important to make clear why the policy calls for more
> significant reservations then might otherwise be expected.
>
Again, I do not think any numbering policy should be ever be motivated
by billing policy.
~Seth
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 22:39:44 +0000
From: John Curran <[email protected]>
To: Steven Ryerse <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] fee structure
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
On Mar 30, 2013, at 2:42 PM, Steven Ryerse <[email protected]> wrote:
> Unfortunately it is somewhat rare to see comments from legacy holders in this
> forum even though I know a lot of them at least "listen" to postings here as
> I've had several make comments to me off-line over time. I think comments
> from legacy holders should be aired in this forum as their comments would
> make these kinds of policy decisions better - even when philosophical issues
> come up like is happening in the current discussions.
Agreed. If anyone has interest in how the registry for the region is
operated, then I would strongly encourage them to speak up. While we
do have a mailing list specifically for members to address issues such
as fees and services, the fact is that you can't have fair discussion
about some items (such as equitable fees for membership) on a list of
which includes only members. The same obviously applies to number policy,
which effects everyone in the registry and hence one of the reasons
that we have always had the public policy mailing list open to all.
> In my humble opinion his most important point is that all of these rules are
> arbitrary. If you stand back and look at all the quibbling going on about
> whether someone should be able to get a /40 or a /36 or a /32 or a /whatever
> - it is easy to see that "community" wishes to limit the assignment of IPv4
> and even IPv6 resources for their purposes - whatever they may be. All of
> these conversations boil down to how best to LIMIT IP resources!
As noted later in your email, "there should be NO LIMITS placed by
ARIN other than a simple justification of the size of the requested
block needed as we all obviously all don't need a /8."
Presently, we've got some fairly straightforward IPv6 allocation
policies for both ISPs and end-users, and no one is discussing
putting _any_ restriction on issuing an /32 to ISPs... the question
being discussed is whether we should allow them to request _less_
space (if that is what they desire) so that we can provide a lower
associated fee ($500/yr) as well. We can't move all ISPs to that
number but would like to allow the smaller category and fees if it
makes sense. We seem to have some folks who think that it would be
a worthwhile change, and some who believe it will encourage some
ISPs to economize their customer assignments to fit in the lower
fees (which are more than half of what they would pay otherwise.)
None of this is "driven" by ARIN... At the end of the day, the policy
as to whether ISPs can request a /40 (rather than /36 or /32) will be
set by the community. The Board has expressed willingness to have
these lower fee categories (they approved the IPv6 /36 already and
the change for /40 will be considered), but again, that's presuming
that the community wants to set some policies which would allow an
ISP to request _less_ IPv6 space than presently allowed today.
> I've said many times and I'll keep saying it as long as I can breathe that
> ARIN's mission is to ALLOCATE resources and not to find reasons NOT TO
> ALLOCATE resources. IPv4 depletion being the justification be damned!
I actually agree with that (personally), but despite what you may
have heard to the contrary, I not make policy for the ARIN region;
the community on this list does, based on lots of discussion against
policy proposals that are actually submitted. If you think that policy
should be different, then submit a proposal which describes how and
why it be changed.
> IPv4 depletion being the justification be damned! The big elephant in
> the room is that legacy holders are afraid of having their resources
> (and thus their businesses and their missions) impacted by all of the
> community policy discussions that are about somehow limiting resources
> or increasing fees or whatever. Who can blame them for taking the
> stance that better to be cautious and not sign anything that might give
> Arin any rights over them - just in case the "community" which is by
> design unpredictable - decides to do something harmful.
Perfectly reasonable concern when it comes to fees, particularly given that
the revised fee schedule does set legacy address holder fees to be the same
as any other end-user. However, I will also note that Legacy RSA (which
many folks talk about but never seem to read) actually has some protections
specifically regarding these concerns:
<https://www.arin.net/resources/agreements/legacy_rsa.pdf>
"ARIN may increase the Legacy Maintenance Fee after December 31, 2012, provided
that (i) the Legacy Maintenance Fee cannot exceed the maintenance fee charged
to
comparable non-legacy holders for the maintenance service as set forth in
ARIN?s
Standard Fee Schedule as posted on ARIN?s Website for comparable number
resources,
and (ii) ARIN must set these fees in an open and transparent manner through
the
ARIN community consultation process."
and
"Whenever a transfer or additional IP address space is requested by Legacy
Holder,
ARIN may review Legacy Holder?s utilization of previously allocated or assigned
number resources and other Services received from ARIN to determine if Legacy
Holder is complying with the Service Terms. Except as set forth in this Legacy
Agreement, (i) ARIN will take no action to reduce the Services currently
provided
for Included Number Resources due to lack of utilization by the Legacy Holder,
and (ii) ARIN has no right to revoke any Included Number Resources under this
Legacy Agreement due to lack of utilization by Legacy Holder."
Legacy holders who enter into an LRSA are indeed bound contractually
to ARIN policies, but they also receive some fairly straightforward
protections in the process.
> My experience of applying for an IPv6 block in the Small Category and being
> approved one month, and applying and being denied for the current Minimum
> Size IPv4 block the next month - provides a real life illustration of just
> how arbitrary Arin's rules really are. I should have been approved for both
> or rejected for both!
Actually, it simply proves that the IPv4 and IPv6 policies are different.
If you want them the same, then you need to persuade your fellow service
providers and end-users on this list to change them accordingly.
> John said in his email to David Farmer yesterday "ARIN is here to serve the
> community, so the normal response to any request should be "Yes", unless
> there a clear reason (example, potential impacts to other parties) that
> something should be prohibited by policy". Obviously since I was approved
> for IPv6 and denied for IPv4, Arin found a reason to say "No" to me rather
> than "Yes" for IPv4 because of some arbitrary policy stemming from IPv4
> depletion concerns. As I said IPv4 depletion be damned as it isn't Arin's
> Mission to NOT ALLOCATE even the Minimum block to a party with need.
> ...
> There should be NO LIMITS placed by Arin other than a simple justification of
> the size of the requested block needed as we all obviously all don't need a
> /8. Then Arin should ALLOCATE for a reasonable cost that covers Arin's bills.
> For the record I have no problem paying a to make sure Arin's reasonable
> bills are paid.
That is good to know; it's also similar to the reasoning that has led to
ARIN having 4 fee reductions since its inception; we need to only recover
reasonable amounts to cover our costs.
> I'm sure I will get the obligatory email response from John about this email
> (which I do think is good) but then my comments again will be ignored by this
> community - and unfortunately all of the legacy holders will continue to be
> cautious and stay away as long as they can. I applaud Mathew's attempt to
> contribute here and the sanity he is trying to provide!
>
> -1 This member is against the current changes as proposed because at least
> in part it further restricts ALLOCATION of resources which I believe to be
> against Arin's Mission.
As we're presently discussing: 1) The new fee schedule (aka the "Pending Fee
schedule) which the Board has adopted; 2) A potential change to the Pending
Fee schedule to make the xx-small category include IPv6 address holders with
as large as a /40 IPv6 allocation; #) A change to policy [Draft ARIN-2013-3]
to allow ISPs to request as small as a /40 of IPv6 (presently limited to as
low as a /36 of IPv6), and 4) A change to a policy [Draft ARIN-2013-2] which
would treat 3GPP networks in a manner similar to current cable providers for
purposes of showing utilization of past blocks when requesting additional
space, would it be possible for you to be just a bit more specific about
which "current changes as proposed" you are referring to above?
Thanks!
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 93, Issue 32
*****************************************
