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. Advisory Council Meeting Results - April 2013 (ARIN)
2. LAST CALL - Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2012-2: IPv6
Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement (ARIN)
3. ARIN-prop-186 Section 8.2 Reorganizations - Notice of intent
to make editorial update (ARIN)
4. Clean up definition of LIR/ISP vs. end-user (Scott Leibrand)
5. Re: Clean up definition of LIR/ISP vs. end-user (Randy Carpenter)
6. Re: Clean up definition of LIR/ISP vs. end-user (William Herrin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:23:09 -0400
From: ARIN <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - April 2013
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process the ARIN Advisory
Council (AC) held a meeting on 24 April 2013 and made decisions about
several draft policies.
The AC moved the following draft policy to last call (it will be
posted separately to last call):
Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2012-2: IPv6 Subsequent Allocations
Utilization Requirement
The following remain on the AC's docket:
Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2013-1: Section 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfers
of ASNs
Draft Policy ARIN-2013-2: 3GPP Network IP Resource Policy
The AC abandoned the following:
Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
The AC provided the following statement:
"Based on the community's input at ARIN 31 and on PPML the Advisory
Council has abandoned ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs.
There was broad community consensus that /40 ISP allocations are
technically undesirable, and that any desire for lower fees should be
resolved within the fee structure itself, rather than by adapting policy
to fit the current fee table."
The AC abandoned ARIN-2013-3. Anyone dissatisfied with this decision may
initiate a petition. The deadline to begin a petition will be five
business days after the AC's draft meeting minutes are published. For
more information on starting and participating in petitions, see PDP
Petitions at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_petitions.html
Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available 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
Regards,
Communications and Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:23:42 -0400
From: ARIN <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL - Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2012-2:
IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 24 April 2013 and decided to
send the following draft policy to last call:
Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2012-2: IPv6 Subsequent Allocations
Utilization Requirement
Feedback is encouraged during the last call period. All comments should
be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. This last call will
expire on 13 May 2013. After last call the AC will conduct their
last call review.
The draft policy text is below and available at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/
The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
Regards,
Communications and Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
## * ##
Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2012-2
IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement
Date: 26 March 2013
AC's assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number
Resource Policy:
Policy 2012-2 enables fair and impartial resource administration by
creating an additional criteria under which LIRs can qualify for a
subsequent allocation. This policy does not modify the definition of who
is covered under the existing policy. This proposal addresses a
technical blindspot in the existing subsequent allocation policy that
limits initial IPv6 deployment growth. Over the last year, there has
been significant community support on the mailing list and at meetings
to rectify this blindspot. Coming to an agreement on specific wording
that does not open this to abuse has been more difficult.
Policy statement:
The change to the NRPM is the addition of the third bullet in 6.5.3.b.
2.14. Serving Site (IPv6) When applied to IPv6 policies, the term
serving site shall mean a location where an ISP terminates or aggregates
customer connections, including, but, not limited to Points of Presence
(POPs), Datacenters, Central or Local switching office or regional or
local combinations thereof.
6.5.3. Subsequent Allocations to LIRs
a. Where possible ARIN will make subsequent allocations by expanding the
existing allocation.
b. An LIR qualifies for a subsequent allocation if they meet any of the
following criteria:
* Shows utilization of 75% or more of their total address space
* Shows utilization of more than 90% of any serving site
* Has allocated more than 90% of their total address space to serving
sites, with the block size allocated to each serving site being
justified based on the criteria specified in section 6.5.2
c. If ARIN can not expand one or more existing allocations, ARIN shall
make a new allocation based on the initial allocation criteria above.
The LIR is encouraged, but not required to renumber into the new
allocation over time and return any allocations no longer in use.
d. If an LIR has already reached a /12 or more, ARIN will allocate a
single additional /12 rather than continue expanding nibble boundaries.
Rationale/Problem Statement:
Subnet expansion may occur rapidly and unevenly in the early stages of
IPv6 deployment. Providers may find that they have put all of their
subnets/serving sites into service, and do not have enough space to add
an additional serving site. They may have plenty of space available
within subnets to make customer assignments, but can not turn up a new
location (eg city, pop).
Timetable for implementation: Immediately
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:24:16 -0400
From: ARIN <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-186 Section 8.2 Reorganizations -
Notice of intent to make editorial update
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 24 April 2013 and requested that
the following proposed editorial update to the Number Resource Policy
Manual (NRPM) be posted for review by the community.
The AC provided the following statement:
----
"Having reviewed ARIN-prop-186 'Section 8.2 Reorganizations' the AC
believes that the requested change is editorial in nature. This
decision is based on the facts that the author of the current text did
not intend to remove reorganizations, that ARIN's operational
procedure will not change based on this update, as they currently
consider reorganizations to be valid. It was pointed out by staff that
unless the term were reintroduced into policy, their operational
procedure may have to change accordingly. Based on this position, the
ARIN AC proposes that the following editorial change be made to the
NRPM:
Re-insert the word 'reorganization' into section 8.2; the resulting
text will read:
"ARIN will consider requests for the transfer of number resources in
the case of mergers, acquisitions, and reorganizations under the
following conditions: ..."
Please voice any concerns to the AC as soon as possible."
----
The process for editorial updates to the NRPM is found in Part One,
Section 3.1, paragraph 3 of the PDP:
"Changes to policy that are purely editorial and non-substantial in
nature are outside the scope of the full Policy Development Process and
may only be made with 30 days public notice followed by the concurrence
of both the ARIN Advisory Council and ARIN Board of Trustees that the
changes are non-substantial in nature."
The review period will close on 29 May 2013.
ARIN-prop-186 is below and available at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/
The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
Regards,
Communications and Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
## * ##
Policy Proposal Name: Section 8.2 Reorganizations
Proposal Originator: John Springer
Date: 23 April 2013
Problem Statement:
There is no longer a reference to corporate reorganizations in the
policy. ARIN often sees corporate reorganizations as the basis for transfer.
Corporate reorganizations were part of the previous version of 8.2
policy as follows:
"ARIN will consider requests for the transfer of number resources only
upon receipt of evidence that the new entity has acquired the assets
which had, as of the date of the acquisition or proposed reorganization,
justified the current entity's use of the number resource."
Current policy reads: "ARIN will consider requests for the transfer of
number resources in the case of mergers and acquisitions under the
following conditions: ..."
Corporate reorganizations are currently being allowed under the
following conditions: A parent organization can transfer resources to a
child organization or vice versa as long as the child is a 100% wholly
owned subsidiary. Various documentary requirements apply.
Policy statement:
"ARIN will consider requests for the transfer of number resources in the
case of mergers, acquisitions and corporate reorganizations under the
following conditions: ..."
Timetable for implementation: Immediately
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 13:41:56 -0700
From: Scott Leibrand <[email protected]>
To: ARIN-PPML List <[email protected]>
Subject: [arin-ppml] Clean up definition of LIR/ISP vs. end-user
Message-ID:
<cagkmwz6k9tbzu3x0mc61a6vau143xieugxhhb1_cu_qhxx7...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
At ARIN 31 last week, Leslie's Policy Experience Report (slides at
https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_31/PDF/monday/nobile_policy.pdfor
https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_31/PPT/monday/nobile_policy.pptx)
reported that, in ARIN staff's experience, the NRPM does not adequately
define ISP/LIR vs. end-user. For example, by literally applying the
existing definitions as currently written, my employer would be neither an
ISP nor and end-user, because while they do not *primarily* assign address
space to users, neither do they *exclusively* use it in their own
networks. So I think those definitions need a few tweaks.
I would propose that the primary difference between ISPs/LIRs vs.
end-users, for purposes of the NRPM, is whether an organization reassigns
address blocks to third parties. If an organization maintains full control
of all of the equipment on its network, and doesn't need to make any
reassignments to other organizations, then it can qualify as an end-user.
In particular, an end user organization must be able to supply a full list
of all the IP addresses in use on its network, and know what devices are
using those addresses.
An ISP/LIR, on the other hand, should be defined by whether they delegate
that responsibility to another organization. In that case, they need to
reassign the network space via SWIP/rwhois, which makes them an LIR.
I understand that there are other considerations, such as the expectation
in the security community that addresses within an ISP allocation are
generally controlled by third parties, whereas addresses in an end-user
assignment are generally controlled by the end-user organization. However,
I don't believe it's practical to try to draw a distinction there: rather,
organizations can decide for themselves whether they need to make
reassignments (for that or several other reasons), and that decision can
drive whether they are considered an ISP/LIR or end-user for purposes of
ARIN policy.
In light of the above, I would propose the following revised definitions:
2.4. Local Internet Registry (LIR)
The terms Internet Service Provider (ISP) and LIR are used interchangeably
in this document. A Local Internet Registry (LIR) is an IR that assigns
address space to the users of the network services that it provides.
Therefore, LIRs / ISPs are organizations that reassign addresses to end
users and/or reallocate addresses to other ISPs/LIRs.
2.6. End-user
An end-user is an organization receiving assignments of IP addresses
exclusively for use in its operational networks, and does not register any
reassignments of that space.
Thoughts? Should I submit this as a policy proposal?
-Scott
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130429/d6f09227/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:25:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Randy Carpenter <[email protected]>
To: Scott Leibrand <[email protected]>
Cc: ARIN-PPML List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Clean up definition of LIR/ISP vs. end-user
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
One clarification that would be nice is for an org who is providing transit and
a single IP address to customer(s') router(s) for purposes of routing. That
sounds "ISP" at first glance, but if the org in question does not actually
reassign "blocks" of addresses that need to be SWIPed/WHOISed, then I would
think they would be an end-user with regard to number policy.
thanks,
-Randy
----- Original Message -----
> At ARIN 31 last week, Leslie's Policy Experience Report (slides at
> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_31/PDF/monday/nobile_policy.pdf
> or
> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_31/PPT/monday/nobile_policy.pptx
> ) reported that, in ARIN staff's experience, the NRPM does not adequately
> define ISP/LIR vs. end-user. For example, by literally applying the existing
> definitions as currently written, my employer would be neither an ISP nor
> and end-user, because while they do not *primarily* assign address space to
> users, neither do they *exclusively* use it in their own networks. So I
> think those definitions need a few tweaks.
>
> I would propose that the primary difference between ISPs/LIRs vs. end-users,
> for purposes of the NRPM, is whether an organization reassigns address
> blocks to third parties. If an organization maintains full control of all of
> the equipment on its network, and doesn't need to make any reassignments to
> other organizations, then it can qualify as an end-user. In particular, an
> end user organization must be able to supply a full list of all the IP
> addresses in use on its network, and know what devices are using those
> addresses.
>
> An ISP/LIR, on the other hand, should be defined by whether they delegate
> that responsibility to another organization. In that case, they need to
> reassign the network space via SWIP/rwhois, which makes them an LIR.
>
> I understand that there are other considerations, such as the expectation in
> the security community that addresses within an ISP allocation are generally
> controlled by third parties, whereas addresses in an end-user assignment are
> generally controlled by the end-user organization. However, I don't believe
> it's practical to try to draw a distinction there: rather, organizations can
> decide for themselves whether they need to make reassignments (for that or
> several other reasons), and that decision can drive whether they are
> considered an ISP/LIR or end-user for purposes of ARIN policy.
>
> In light of the above, I would propose the following revised definitions:
>
> 2.4. Local Internet Registry (LIR)
> The terms Internet Service Provider (ISP) and LIR are used interchangeably in
> this document. A Local Internet Registry (LIR) is an IR that assigns address
> space to the users of the network services that it provides. Therefore, LIRs
> / ISPs are organizations that reassign addresses to end users and/or
> reallocate addresses to other ISPs/LIRs.
>
> 2.6. End-user
> An end-user is an organization receiving assignments of IP addresses
> exclusively for use in its operational networks, and does not register any
> reassignments of that space.
>
> Thoughts? Should I submit this as a policy proposal?
>
> -Scott
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 6
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:31:11 -0400
From: William Herrin <[email protected]>
To: Scott Leibrand <[email protected]>
Cc: ARIN-PPML List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Clean up definition of LIR/ISP vs. end-user
Message-ID:
<CAP-guGUuGbwNpcfeMzP1745=844eznw4S5XEePgmiyyFw=+v...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Scott Leibrand <[email protected]> wrote:
> I would propose that the primary difference between ISPs/LIRs vs. end-users,
> for purposes of the NRPM, is whether an organization reassigns address
> blocks to third parties. If an organization maintains full control of all
> of the equipment on its network, and doesn't need to make any reassignments
> to other organizations, then it can qualify as an end-user. In particular,
> an end user organization must be able to supply a full list of all the IP
> addresses in use on its network, and know what devices are using those
> addresses.
Hi Scott,
Keep it simple:
1. There is no LIR. Only ISP. I get the distinction but it's
needlessly confusing for everybody who isn't steeped in ARIN policy.
2. If you don't claim to be an end user, you're an ISP subject to all
rules, privileges and fees.
3. If no portion of your justification for IP addresses is based on
assignment to and opaque use by a third party you may claim to be an
end-user subject to end-user rules, privileges and fees.
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 94, Issue 42
*****************************************
