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 (David Miller)
2. Re: Against 2013-4 (Steven Ryerse)
3. Re: Against 2013-4 (William Herrin)
4. Re: Against 2013-4 (Matthew Petach)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 15:59:53 -0400
From: David Miller <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 6/4/2013 11:52 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> My vote is against.
>
>
>
> I think that saying that the ?vocal? community fairly represents the
> entire ARIN community is presumptuous at best. I?m just pulling up the
> /8 allocation holders again and I would ask:
>
>
>
> GE has a /8 ? what do they think about this? ? I?ve never seen a post
> from a GE email address in this forum. How about AT&T ? what do they
> think? I don?t have a clue from reading posts in this forum. How about
> Xerox or Apple or Ford or Halliburton. They all have /8?s. I can?t
> recall seeing any emails from any of those allocation holders either.
> And of course there are many more /8 holders I?ve not mentioned. Then
> add all of the Legacy holders and all of the allocation holders that
> have received allocations since ARIN was created - and it is a very very
> slim percentage of all of the ARIN stakeholders who ever comment in this
> forum.
>
>
>
> Who out there knows what all of these stakeholder think? I don?t think
> anybody knows. So to make comments in this forum that presupposes that
> this entire community feels one way or another is inaccurate because
> nobody really knows.
>
>
>
> Of course we could ask everyone in the ARIN community to comment.
>
>
>
> And before anyone says that they could comment if they wish, I don?t see
> anywhere in my Legacy paperwork that says I(they) have to participate in
> this community to be a stakeholder. This community needs to be open
> minded and not closed minded - and it needs to take into consideration
> all ARIN stakeholders and not just the ones that decide to comment.
You are conflating the "community" and "stakeholders". Those who hold
number resources are stakeholders - i.e. "a person or group that has an
investment, share, or interest in something". Stakeholders are not
required to participate in the ARIN community. ARIN makes decisions
based on community input. This is not new. Thus stakeholders who
decide not to participate in the community risk their viewpoints not
being heard. This is not new either.
As far as I can tell, ARIN invites voting, meeting attendance, and input
from all stakeholders at every turn.
> Free markets with reasonable governance always work.
Absolute statements are almost always wrong.
No, free markets do not do not always work. We have public fire
departments because private (free market) fire departments failed
miserably. Society decided that there was a public good in putting out
fires.
We could discuss what "reasonable governance" is forever and never reach
consensus.
> Central planning and control always fails and always provides uneven results.
> Needs based testing is central planning! The current policies are
producing
> uneven results.
Central planning and control does not always fail. It doesn't always
work either. In many cases it depends on the scope of what exactly is
being controlled.
We could discuss what "uneven results" are forever and never reach
consensus.
> It is time to halt the current needs based allocations.
I disagree.
>
> /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/
>
>
>
> Description: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks
> Logo_small.png?Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>
> ^ Conquering Complex Networks ^? ^
>
>
>
> *From:*[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> *On Behalf Of *Blake Dunlap
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 04, 2013 11:26 AM
> *To:* Kevin Kargel
> *Cc:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
>
>
>
> Now legitimately, I don't think some or maybe even most of the advocates
> of dropping needs basis are in it for personal gain. There are at least
> a few if not a lot of them that genuinely believe that some version of a
> "free" market is the best solution to directing goods to those who
> should have them. Let's not marginalize them with accusations of self
> profit motivation, it needlessly creates animosity and an us vs them
> attitude.
>
>
>
> -Blake
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Kevin Kargel <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> I for one am a supporter of the needs basis. As I have said before, if
> we eliminate the needs basis then I want to be first in line to request
> everything that is left. I am sure there will be quite a queue.
>
> My perception is that the ARIN community is strongly biased to support
> needs basis and there is a very vocal minority trying to eliminate it so
> that they can create a market they can profit by. I don't read the
> opposition to needs basis as having anything to do with the good of the
> community, though there have been many mutations of the spin on it to
> try and advertise it that way.
>
> Kevin
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>]
> On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 10:17 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
>
> On Jun 3, 2013, at 12:37 , Steven Ryerse <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> It is not an assumption. It is reflected in the numbers each time this
> question has been raised in a public policy meeting throughout ARIN's
> history.
>
> Owen
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[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]
> <mailto:[email protected]>).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[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.
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 21:30:41 +0000
From: Steven Ryerse <[email protected]>
To: David Farmer <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
Message-ID:
<5b9e90747fa2974d91a54fcfa1b8ad120135e74...@eni-mail.eclipse-networks.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
David we have disagreed quite a lot in the past but I pretty much agree with
the spirit of your comments below.
I have stated several times in the past that allocations should always be made
- but they need to be made with some sort of rightsizing. Obviously the
difficulty is defining a policy that does that but I think it is possible to
create one that just takes into account the size of the organization and/or the
size of the existing network and the requested size of the block. So when an
allocation request comes into ARIN, at least the community defined minimum size
block would always be allocated, and larger requests would be matched against
the size of the organization and/or the size of their existing allocations or
maybe networks. There could be a reasonable appeal process if a larger request
was only filled with a smaller block. The remaining amount of ARIN's IPv4
allocations should NOT be factored in. In this role ARIN is the registrar and
is basically performing the role Jon Postel did of getting right sized
allocations out there. (ARIN and this community should also p
erform the technical role the same as they do now.) Jon gave me 5 Class C's
when I asked for them for a customer but I'm guessing he wouldn't have given me
a Class A without making sure there was a large organization behind the
request. Don't know if he would have given me a Class B in 1994 (I wish I had
asked). I'm guessing he would have if I could have convinced him of a possible
need.
This approach worked pretty well in the past and it could work well again. I
also believe that this is the approach that perfectly aligns allocation policy
with ARIN's Mission Statement. It seems to me that the Mission Statement goes
out the window on a lot of discussions in this community and it should be the
driving force behind all discussions.
Finally I think a free market will bring out plenty of IPv4 addresses that are
currently unavailable and this will keep hoarding and prices down. I would
point out that most of the IPv4 addresses are already being hoarded (just look
at the /8 list) and only easy access to reasonable sized IP allocations will
reduce hoarding. Tight restrictive policies like ARIN uses now encourage
hoarding and we are seeing that happen. Organizations hoard when they fear not
being able to get needed resources and are less likely to hoard when resources
are easy to get. I suspect that a free market in ipv4 addresses would make the
equivalent of many /8's available to the open market. Certainly there is
enough unused IPV4 resources to get us thru until IPv6 is more prevalent. The
real world I have to live in has one of my upstream (BGP) fiber providers
supporting IPV6 and the other not supporting it at this time. I have to have
the right amount of IPv4 to get me thru and so does everyone
else.
-----Original Message-----
From: David Farmer [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 1:23 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Blake Dunlap; Kevin Kargel; [email protected]; David Farmer
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
On 6/4/13 10:52 , Steven Ryerse wrote:
...
> Who out there knows what all of these stakeholder think? I don?t
> think anybody knows. So to make comments in this forum that
> presupposes that this entire community feels one way or another is
> inaccurate because nobody really knows.
I for one don't presuppose that the whole community feels one way or the other.
However, every time we've touched this set of issues from one side or the
other in the last couple years we have not gained consensus one way or the
other.
> Of course we could ask everyone in the ARIN community to comment.
We are, that is the point of ARIN-2013-4, everyone should take it as asking the
question of the whole ARIN community.
...
> Free markets with reasonable governance always work.
I agree, however what constitutes "reasonable governance" is the very question
being debated.
> Central planning
> and control always fails and always provides uneven results. Needs
> based testing is central planning! The current policies are producing
> uneven results.
>
> It is time to halt the current needs based allocations.
I'll agree the current policy for measuring need has issues, especially as we
move toward IPv4 free pool exhaustion, but that doesn't mean the principle of
need is wrong. If we completely abandon need as a principle what principle
would you put in place that would help ensure fair distribution of IPv6 and ASN
resources?
I believe the real issue is that IPv4 conservation thinking has warp our sense
of what need really means and should be. I want to see a meaning of need more
representative of current IPv6 and ASN policy, or early '90s IPv4 polices, and
not the hyper conservation need polices we have for IPv4 today.
I agree that the price of IPv4 addresses will be the primary force determining
need for IPv4 going forward, and at least influence IPv6 adoption and demand.
However, that doesn't mean that just anyone can buy IP address, there needs to
be some minimal threshold, like actually operating a network, and being
responsive to technical and operational issues. Also, personally I believe
there should be an upper limit on how much address space you can buy without a
more detailed justification, I've proposed /12 in the past.
In my opinion "free markets with reasonable governance" have some kind of
checks and balances placed on the market, and I believe some minimal
operational need requirement is one of those checks and balances in this case.
--
================================================
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
================================================
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 17:40:53 -0400
From: William Herrin <[email protected]>
To: Jason Schiller <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
Message-ID:
<cap-gugw+8vsf9dwz7sdmq1ck0wbgjq_0udk6j-suu2q6rcf...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Jason Schiller <[email protected]> wrote:
> But I feel this is best accomplished in small steps, and the
> smallest step is distilling out the current principles and putting
> them in the NRPM. Once we do that they exist in the NRPM
> and under the current PDP can be changed through community
> support, like any other part of the PDP.
Hi Jason,
Two quick points:
I think goals 1 and 3 from
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-housley-rfc2050bis/?include_text=1
are pretty reasonable as written. Are you open to abandoning your text
in favor of that text?
Hierarchy is still a dead duck. If you want to talk sensibly about the
registry's role in routing, start with the need for routing
scalability. Then make the dual points that BGP scales only through
aggregation at the source and that the registry doesn't set routing
policy, ISPs do. Then stop. Leave hierarchy out of it.
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: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 14:48:09 -0700
From: Matthew Petach <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
Message-ID:
<CAEmG1=qJDRnH1ELsLGPXtXf=tgl8pr1vj2toauvnsfm4y5s...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Cautiously in favour of the idea, but I think careful rewording is needed;
was originally against, until I read Jason's follow-up explaining
intent; but as currently written I don't think I could support it.
So--advise AC shepherd work with authors on clarifying
this and then bring it back.
Matt
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:12 AM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Milton L Mueller <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I would have to oppose most of the statements in this proposed revision
> of the RIR principles.
>
> +1
>
> > While it is a good idea to update a document written literally a
> generation ago for a different IPv4 world, it seems obvious to me that a
> lot of the thinking that went into this 2013-4 is an attempt to rigidify
> obsolete thinking rather than to update things. This is a backwards-looking
> revision that has little support in the real world.
>
> >> Section 0: Principles and Goals of the Internet Registry System
> >>
> >> 0.1. Efficient utilization based on need (Conservation)
> >
> > This represents confused thinking. Conservation as a
> > principle does NOT necessarily mean needs-based allocation.
>
> I agree. Needs based allocation has been called into question for good
> reason these past few years. Principles should be things which aren't
> in serious, active dispute.
>
> As I said before, I think the principle we're after is sustainability.
> At the policy level conservation may be an appropriate tool of
> sustainability. The same for needs based allocation. Whether obsolete
> thinking or best available method they're tools which serve a
> principle. Neither is reasonable when standing at the top *as* a
> principle.
>
>
> >> 0.1.1. Documented Justified Need (Needs Based)
> >
> > This section attempts to codify and make permanent
> > a set of policies that were developed in the final death
> > throes of IPv4.
>
> I agree. Documentation should serve fairness and sustainability. Where
> it doesn't, it should be strictly optional.
>
>
> > The idea of authorizing intrusive "accounting of resources"
> > is precisely the opposite of the way we need to be going,
> > both in IPv4 and IPv6. We should let the market allocate
> > transfers of the fully-allocated IPv4 numbers, and current
> > policies, which give organizations blocks based on the
> > number of networks they claim and some fill ratio, for IPv6.
>
> That is unproven. However, if our stated principles would prevent us
> from giving it a chance then our stated principles are wrong and
> wrong-headed.
>
>
> >> 0.3. Uniqueness (Registration)
> >
> > This aspect of the proposed revisions really went off the rails.
> > First, uniqueness should be valorized as the single most fundamental and
> important principle of stewardship, the one to which all the other
> principles are subordinate. It is the most important justification for
> having a registry.
>
>
> I agree.
>
>
>
> >> 0.4. Stewardship
> >>
> >> It should be noted that efficient utilization and hierarchical
> >> aggregation are often conflicting goals. All the above goals may
> >> sometimes be in conflict with the interests of individual end-users or
> >> Internet Service Providers.
> >
> > This section is also inappropriate for a principles document.
> > It purports to tell the current community, as well as all
> > future deliberations for the next 20-odd years, how to make
> > policy tradeoffs. That is the kind of thing that should be left
> > to the community itself.
>
> This is the one spot where I disagree with you. NRPM 6.3.8 says, "In
> IPv6 address policy, the goal of aggregation is considered to be the
> most important." That statement has proven its worth time and again.
>
> There will be conflicts between the principles. Rather than get lost
> and break into dissension every time, we should have a statement in
> the principles document which reminds us which principles are the most
> important.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected]
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130604/7a9bd99e/attachment.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 96, Issue 16
*****************************************
