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: Against 2013-4 (John Curran)
2. Re: Against 2013-4 (William Herrin)
3. Re: Against 2013-4 (John Curran)
4. Re: Against 2013-4 (William Herrin)
5. Re: Against 2013-4 (John Curran)
6. Re: Against 2013-4 (Steven Ryerse)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:57:08 +0000
From: John Curran <[email protected]>
To: Milton L Mueller <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Jun 3, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Milton L Mueller <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Needs basis and documented justified need have been required since the
>> days when Jon Postel tracked IP address assignments in a notebook, so I am
>> not sure how you can claim that this concept was developed in the final
>> death throes of IPv4.
>
> No, I challenge this on a factual basis. The main legacy holders from the
> mid-1980s - MIT, GE, the military, etc. - were not subject to needs
> assessments as we use that term today.
Milton -
It is quite possible that the very earliest allocations were made without
respect to need (at least as we use the term "needs-assessment" today)
One wonders whether saying to Jon, "I want an address block" versus
"I need an address block" made a meaningful difference in the earliest
days, but that's quite likely unknowable.
However, we know that DDN NIC (run by SRI) did require you to specify your
need for address space to determine which size allocation to issue you and
this meant your anticipated need initially, and at one, two, and five years
out. This information was required to be submitted with the network request
template, and we have copies of those back as early as 1990 which make the
requirement quite clear, and definitely in keeping with the term needs-
assessment as it is in use today.
> If they were, you have to explain how MIT and a few others have ended up
> giving back large chunks, effectively admitting that they did not need them?
> If they did not need them, how did they get them?
Not only do needs change over time, but the deployment of CIDR in the early
90's allowed organizations to far more effectively subdivide their existing
blocks and hence allow space to be returned. It is quite likely that an
organization with many buildings and lans might be concerned about fitting
it all in a /16 (and hence requested a /8) would have found itself post-CIDR
able to fit in a /16 easily.
> This is probably not a very fruitful argument in that it is not
> forward-looking, but I do want to make it clear that claims that "we have
> always done it this way" are just false.
We actually don't know if saying "we have always done it this way" is
factually correct, since we do not know the rigour of the earliest
requests, but stating that its been done that way for the last two
decades is provably correct.
(I have no view on the draft policy under discussion, and am providing
this information solely for accuracy of the community discussion of same.)
FYI,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 13:34:14 -0400
From: William Herrin <[email protected]>
To: John Curran <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
Message-ID:
<CAP-guGWoEqhh1gDWgALfMqwK43AE6cu2N4Dcoi7CWWqc=yv...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:57 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
> However, we know that DDN NIC (run by SRI) did require you to specify your
> need for address space to determine which size allocation to issue you and
> this meant your anticipated need initially, and at one, two, and five years
> out. This information was required to be submitted with the network
> request template, and we have copies of those back as early as
> 1990 which make the requirement quite clear, and definitely in
> keeping with the term needs-assessment as it is in use today.
Hi John,
Suggesting that the pre-1995 templates were "quite clear" in their
needs-basis stretches the truth. Prior to the 9/94 template, the
standard for larger-than-/24 assignments was "strong and convincing
reason" with no further guidance as to what sort of reason was
acceptable. No reason was expected for a /24 assignment.
The 8/95 template was the first one which called out the estimate of
hosts and subnets as providing the justification for a larger-than-/24
assignment. It wasn't until the RIRs took over in their respective
service areas (ARIN in '97) that there was any needs-basis for
refusing a request for a minimum size assignment.
You can safely say that ARIN has applied a needs assessment to all new
registrations since its inception. Before that, such claims become
dubious at best.
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: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 17:51:58 +0000
From: John Curran <[email protected]>
To: William Herrin <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected] List" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Jun 3, 2013, at 12:34 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:57 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
>> However, we know that DDN NIC (run by SRI) did require you to specify your
>> need for address space to determine which size allocation to issue you and
>> this meant your anticipated need initially, and at one, two, and five years
>> out. This information was required to be submitted with the network
>> request template, and we have copies of those back as early as
>> 1990 which make the requirement quite clear, and definitely in
>> keeping with the term needs-assessment as it is in use today.
>
> Hi John,
>
> Suggesting that the pre-1995 templates were "quite clear" in their
> needs-basis stretches the truth. Prior to the 9/94 template, the
> standard for larger-than-/24 assignments was "strong and convincing
> reason" with no further guidance as to what sort of reason was
> acceptable. No reason was expected for a /24 assignment.
>
> The 8/95 template was the first one which called out the estimate of
> hosts and subnets as providing the justification for a larger-than-/24
> assignment.
Bill, the 4/90 template asks for the number of hosts that will be on
the network initially, within one year, two years, and five years,
and then additionally requires a strong and convincing reason if you
are requesting more that a /24. You've already got a copy of here:
<http://bill.herrin.us/network/templates/199004-internet-number-template.txt>
Clearly, any assignment larger than a /24 was needs-based by any
definition (and this is in April 1990). I would argue that the
requirement to provide the number of hosts )that would be on the
network) is also a form of demonstrating one's need, but you are
free to interpret it as you see fit.
Thanks!
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 14:08:25 -0400
From: William Herrin <[email protected]>
To: John Curran <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected] List" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
Message-ID:
<cap-gugw7np8dpcvaaevfremd8fehjgxaxueyepjzjmh213j...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:51 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 2013, at 12:34 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Suggesting that the pre-1995 templates were "quite clear" in their
>> needs-basis stretches the truth. Prior to the 9/94 template, the
>> standard for larger-than-/24 assignments was "strong and convincing
>> reason" with no further guidance as to what sort of reason was
>> acceptable. No reason was expected for a /24 assignment.
>>
>> The 8/95 template was the first one which called out the estimate of
>> hosts and subnets as providing the justification for a larger-than-/24
>> assignment.
>
> Bill, the 4/90 template asks for the number of hosts that will be on
> the network initially, within one year, two years, and five years,
> and then additionally requires a strong and convincing reason if you
> are requesting more that a /24. You've already got a copy of here:
> <http://bill.herrin.us/network/templates/199004-internet-number-template.txt>
Hi John,
Which part of the statement do you dispute?
That prior to ARIN no standard was expressed for rejecting a /24
assignment request, hence such requests had no basis in "need"?
That prior to the 9/94 template, the standard for larger-than-/24
assignments was "strong and convincing reason" with no further
guidance as to what sort of reason was acceptable?
That the 8/95 template was the first one which called out the estimate of
hosts and subnets as providing the justification for a larger-than-/24
assignment?
Prior to the 8/95 template, a registrant could as easily have
understood the request for host estimates to be for statistical
purposes rather than as a factor in approving the application.
Were registrants being asked, "Why do you want that much?" before
1995? Clearly they were. Were they being asked in any kind of rigorous
way that even vaguely resembles what we mean when we talk about "needs
basis" today? They were not.
And yes, anyone who cares to form an opinion from the original source
materials can find them at http://bill.herrin.us/network/templates/
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected]
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 18:32:29 +0000
From: John Curran <[email protected]>
To: William Herrin <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected] List" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Jun 3, 2013, at 1:08 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:51 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Bill, the 4/90 template asks for the number of hosts that will be on
>> the network initially, within one year, two years, and five years,
>> and then additionally requires a strong and convincing reason if you
>> are requesting more that a /24. You've already got a copy of here:
>> <http://bill.herrin.us/network/templates/199004-internet-number-template.txt>
>
> Hi John,
>
> Which part of the statement do you dispute?
The following aspect -
> That prior to the 9/94 template, the standard for larger-than-/24
> assignments was "strong and convincing reason" with no further
> guidance as to what sort of reason was acceptable?
As requested on the 4/90 template, the number of hosts that will
be on the network initially, within one year, two years, and five
years is indeed further guidance and provided justification for
the larger assignments.
Thanks!
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 19:37:02 +0000
From: Steven Ryerse <[email protected]>
To: Milton L Mueller <[email protected]>, 'Owen DeLong'
<[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
Message-ID:
<5b9e90747fa2974d91a54fcfa1b8ad120135e72...@eni-mail.eclipse-networks.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I take issue with the assumption that "this community" is strongly for needs
based assignments. Certainly there are folks in this community who frequently
and sometimes loudly voice their support for needs based assignment policies.
Then of course there are folks in this community like me who are vehemently
against needs based assignments and I certainly have voiced that frequently and
sometimes loudly. There have been others who have done so as well from time to
time.
Unfortunately (IMHO) for whatever reasons - most of the current allocation
policies apply a needs test of some sort. I strongly agree with Milton that it
would be much better for the ARIN community to adopt a similar change in all
allocations policies that is called for in
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03 .
I've said it before and I'll say it again that any policy that can be used to
totally deny any sized allocation is against ARIN's mission statement. I
believe that only size tests and not needs tests for allocations should ever be
used. Only the size of the organization and/or the size of the existing
network should be used to calculate the size of an allocation and it should
never be zero.
I have seen folks comment against needs test policies in one way or another,
and when no changes occur, they just stop commenting because of frustration.
Some just decide to go around "this community" and skip ARIN altogether and
purchase their IPv4 needs from a third party or a broker like this site does
http://www.hilcobid.net/auction/listOffers.htm?auction_id=13186&elementsPerPage=25#barranavegacaoleilao
. Just because some folks have decided to go around ARIN for their needs and
stop commenting here - certainly doesn't mean that they are in agreement with
ARIN's needs based policies. It just means that they got tired of beating
their heads into the wall of "needs based allocations" and went around it
instead.
If we really want to find out what the ENTIRE ARIN geographic location
community thinks about this subject, I would advocate sending out some sort of
questionnaire to EVERONE listed in ARIN geographic database as that is the real
"community" that ARIN serves and not just the relative few who periodically
comment. It would be very interesting to see what all of the /8 holders really
think and what all of the smaller legacy holders think along with the folks
that regularly comment here. I'm guessing some other points of view would be
strongly expressed.
There has been some discussion recently about making policy changes or
clarifications in areas that RFC 2050 covers. As a legacy holder (of one /24)
I would recommend this community let sleeping dogs lie and not try to use
policy to somehow change the status quo of legacy holder's allocations. If
this community decides they want to engage Legacy Holders it would be much
better to do so directly instead of by policy.
Also, around the time I got our Legacy /24 allocation in 1994 I also got
several for some of my customers. One of my customers was a subsidiary of
American Express (though that wasn't their name) and I requested 5 Class C
blocks and received 5 consecutive /24 allocations. I still have all of the
paperwork for this request including the original allocation paperwork. The
questionnaire I filled out did ask how many hosts I expected to have in the
future but it did not require me or my customer to actually make use of them
ever. It did not make me prove I needed more than a /24 in any way. It didn't
ask me to prove the addresses were actually used at some later date. The five
consecutive /24's were just allocated exactly as I requested. At the time I
thought they were asking this info to survey how many future Internet users
there might be since Internet usage was relatively small in 1994. Also in case
some folks don't know, there was absolutely no legal verbiage one way
or the other on the questionnaire I received or on the allocation notices I
received.
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 Milton L Mueller
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 10:51 AM
To: 'Owen DeLong'
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
> -----Original Message-----
> Quite recently, we have seen repeated demonstrations of strong support
> for needs basis from the community.
We have? Do you mean two ARIN people, Bill and Chris, speaking out at a RIPE
meeting?
I would not deny that there is a small core of people in North America who are
religiously devoted to the idea of needs assessments. Maybe we are talking
about a dozen people at most.
But the consensus within the RIPE APWG is pretty clearly in favor of the no
need proposal, and the topic is highly controversial even within the ARIN
region.
> Needs basis and documented justified need have been required since the
> days when Jon Postel tracked IP address assignments in a notebook, so
> I am not sure how you can claim that this concept was developed in the
> final death throes of IPv4.
No, I challenge this on a factual basis. The main legacy holders from the
mid-1980s - MIT, GE, the military, etc. - were not subject to needs assessments
as we use that term today.
If they were, you have to explain how MIT and a few others have ended up giving
back large chunks, effectively admitting that they did not need them? If they
did not need them, how did they get them? This is probably not a very fruitful
argument in that it is not forward-looking, but I do want to make it clear that
claims that "we have always done it this way" are just false.
> I'm well aware of your desire to move to a world where IP number
> resources management is as dysfunctional as radio spectrum management is
> today.
> (One need look no further than the history of the 220Mhz band for an
> example of this dysfunction).
Owen, having studied radio allocation since 1981 and having served at the FCC
as an intern in the 80s, I know a thing or two about how radio spectrum
allocation worked prior to auctions. And if you consider that world of beauty
contests, political pull and allocations narrowly and wastefully dedicated to
specific services to be a paragon of efficiency and fairness, I have some
reports for you to read.
_______________________________________________
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.
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 96, Issue 6
****************************************
