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 (Blake Dunlap)
2. Re: Against 2013-4 (Mike Burns)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 18:13:30 -0500
From: Blake Dunlap <[email protected]>
To: Bill Darte <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
Message-ID:
<cajvb4tnvbhqakjx3hkutckhbtehemp7s-lfqkusrmkvg+ub...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I for one also see a strong support for needs basis, and a strong minority
that is obsessed with removing regulation in general. That's just one voice
though and should be viewed as such, as I believe we should also go with
what the majority wishes.
On Jun 3, 2013 5:39 PM, "Bill Darte" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think the experience prior to 2050 is mute. I believe that 2050 is out
> of date. I think this conversation is exactly the conversation that need
> be engaged around this Draft Policy and around the subject of new needs
> basis. I do wish to point out that all of the current NRPM policy has been
> created by the broader community and changing the needs-basis of IP address
> allocations/assignments means gaining a community consensus for this
> through the Policy Development Process.
>
> Simply saying there is no longer community support for this principle
> seems insupportable by the overwhelming and continuing support shown in the
> policy development process since at least 1997. I detect no similar
> support in opposition. But, I'm hopeful that those supporting both
> positions speak on the subject.
>
> bd
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Jason Schiller <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Bill,
>>
>> I think I see the crux of the issue here.
>>
>> If people want to throw out the current principles of stewardship,
>> and create a new set of principles that are better than the ones
>> we already have (maybe we got it wrong the first time), I support
>> that, and wish you the best of luck, but believe this to be a very
>> contentious and difficult to make progress.
>>
>> I am trying to simply document our current stewardship principles,
>> and have mostly lifted text from RFC 2050, the NRPM and the
>> PDP, such that these guiding ideas do not get lost if RFC 2050
>> is deprecated.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe a better way to phrase this question is:
>>
>> If this draft policy is passed, what changes to the current ARIN
>> practices do you oppose?
>>
>> ___Jason
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:45 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Jason Schiller <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>> > What we need at this point is a high level discussion, about the
>>> general
>>> > direction.
>>>
>>> Hi Jason,
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>> > I'm not sure a discussion of merits of needs based allocation /
>>> assignment
>>> > is useful at this point in the discussion.
>>> >
>>> > Neither is it helpful to discuss alternate flavors of
>>> > conservation at this time.
>>>
>>> Disagree. We have to decide whether these are core on ancillary. As
>>> written they're a part of the high-level principles. I don't think
>>> they belong there.
>>>
>>>
>>> > I made a conscious effort minimize modernizing the policy and believe I
>>> > did so only where the language we use has clarified the principle and
>>> is
>>> > consistent with current ARIN policy and operations.
>>> > The thought here
>>> > was to not change the status quo, and simply document what is the
>>> > already agreed upon basis of the current state of things.
>>>
>>> That's exactly the problem. If we don't want to change the status quo
>>> then we can't start from RFC 2050 because we've moved way beyond it
>>> and are on the precipice of moving far further.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > Should ARIN policy and operations be changed to match the principle?
>>> > (Did we make a wrong term and abandon a principle we should not have?)
>>>
>>> In time. The principles should apply to new policy as we find it
>>> needful to write.
>>>
>>>
>>> > Should the principle be modified to make holes for the ARIN practice?
>>> > (The principle is true, but it doesn't apply here due to this history)
>>>
>>> If we get the principles right then there shouldn't be any holes that
>>> we actively want to preserve. The presence of a hole highlights an
>>> error in the proposed principles.
>>>
>>> Take Legacy Registrants for example. Are they a hole in the
>>> principles? Or is the principle missing or miswritten? Why isn't the
>>> principle, "We leave the early adoption registrations alone until they
>>> change."
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Bill Herrin
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected]
>>> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
>>> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> _______________________________________________________
>> Jason Schiller|NetOps|[email protected]|571-266-0006
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130603/7e0afa73/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 19:37:47 -0400
From: "Mike Burns" <[email protected]>
To: "David Farmer" <[email protected]>, "William Herrin" <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
Message-ID: <99F6A09F2EB54AC5AE916CD5254E9FB2@ncsscfoipoxes4>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi David,
All that is being demonstrated by your research below is that operational need
was a principle of allocation of addresses *from the free pool*.
And that makes perfect sense to everybody. You had to have some means to fairly
distribute the addresses, and the lightest touch of the steward would be to
just give them away for free to anyone. Of course that would allow anybody to
claim all the addresses, so the lightest workable touch then became giving them
away for free to anyone who needed them. And that's what we have done, and it
has served us well.
With a transfer market, pricing enforces conservation with the lightest touch
from ARIN stewards.
The whole point here is that RFC2050 is outdated, right? I agree- it was the
product of a mindset which did not conceive of a life after the free pool
exhausts. There is no concept of a transfer market in RFC-2050, so why draw the
inference that the principle of conservation of free pool addresses should be
extended to transfers?
The purpose of a market is to allocate scarce resources. It does this through
pricing the resource. Now that we have this conservation force working for us,
it is our responsibility as stewards to step back, pat ourselves on the back
for a job well done with the free pool allocations, and concentrate our
resources on our primary role as registrars. This means we do not create or
maintain policies that provide an incentive for transfers to occur which are
not booked in Whois, such as need tests for transfers.
I am opposed to 2013-4.
Regards,
Mike Burns
----- Original Message -----
From: David Farmer
To: William Herrin
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
On 6/3/13 15:52 , William Herrin wrote:
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:24 PM, John Osmon <[email protected]> wrote:
When (say) MIT asked for space, Class B was too small their needs and
Class A was the only larger size available. They didn't request a /8,
they requested a netblock that fit their needs and got a Class A. The
needs assessment at the time was simply different.
Hi John,
Not exactly. IIRC (and the old fogies are free to correct me here) the
predecessor to IPv4 had exactly 256 addresses. When IPv4 was deployed,
each prior user was automatically assigned the /8 corresponding to
their prior address. MIT is one of the organizations which had a
computer using the prior Internet protocol, so they automatically
received a /8I'm not really an old fogie, at least I don't think I am.
However, since I work for an organization with significant Legacy resources,
I've done a bit of research looking through the RFCs that document the earliest
IPv4 assignments, including several for my employer. See, RFCs 790, 820, 870,
900, 923, 943, 960, 990, 997, 1020, 1166.
Comparing RFC 776 and RFC 790 it is easy to infer what you say is what
happened in MIT's case, and a few others. However, John is also right, if you
demonstrated need you could get a class A, at least for a some while. This can
also be inferred by comparing RFC 790 and RFC 820, note several class As were
assigned between these two RFCs. Also, along the way through this series RFCs
class As were assigned, RFC 1166 is I think the last RFC that documented
address assignments in an RFC.
Very few /8's were assigned after that. Anybody who wanted more than a
class B received multiple class B's, not a class A.Eventually, yes that was the
case, and was definitely the case by the time RFC 1366 was published, However
it was still technically possible to get a class A even then, look at Section
4.1.
Finally, as was pointed out earlier, operational need was required for all
assignments. It was noted that even for a class C you had to estimate how many
hosts were going to be connected, initially, and at one, two and five years.
As a thought experiment, what do you think John Postel would have said, if you
answered that question with zero(0), especially for the one, two and five year
parts of the question. Do you think it might have been "come back later"?
The bar was low, but there was a bar even for class Cs, and that bar was that
you were going to use them in a network, "operational need"
Therefore, I believe operational need is a principle that MUST be included.
There are valid policy questions of what the proper measure of operational need
for the current times and current protocols are. I believe the measure of
operational need will properly change over time, and for IPv4 such a time is
likely here or upon us very soon. But, a principle that assignments or
allocations are made for operational need is valid and technically necessary.
Equally, we need policies and procedure that interpret this principle in the
light of today's protocols and operational realities, is also valid and
necessary, and the whole point of documenting operational need as principle.
--
================================================
David Farmer Email: [email protected]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130603/0b742b3e/attachment.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 96, Issue 10
*****************************************
