I Support for /24. RD On Jul 8, 2014 7:42 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. Weekly posting summary for [email protected] (Thomas Narten) > 2. comment - Draft Policy ARIN-2013-8 (Mike Mazarick) > 3. Re: comment - Draft Policy ARIN-2013-8 (Matthew Kaufman) > 4. Re: LAST CALL: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12: > Anti-hijack Policy (Matthew Kaufman) > 5. Re: LAST CALL: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-13: Reduce > All Minimum Allocation/Assignment Units to /24 (Matthew Kaufman) > 6. Re: LAST CALL: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-5: Remove > 7.2 Lame Delegations (Matthew Kaufman) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 00:53:03 -0400 > From: Thomas Narten <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Total of 22 messages in the last 7 days. > > script run at: Fri Jul 4 00:53:03 EDT 2014 > > Messages | Bytes | Who > --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ > 22.73% | 5 | 15.74% | 65269 | [email protected] > 18.18% | 4 | 19.71% | 81738 | [email protected] > 4.55% | 1 | 31.02% | 128615 | [email protected] > 13.64% | 3 | 12.68% | 52580 | [email protected] > 13.64% | 3 | 4.31% | 17863 | [email protected] > 4.55% | 1 | 5.31% | 22027 | [email protected] > 4.55% | 1 | 3.88% | 16098 | [email protected] > 4.55% | 1 | 2.26% | 9382 | [email protected] > 4.55% | 1 | 2.15% | 8917 | [email protected] > 4.55% | 1 | 1.73% | 7180 | [email protected] > 4.55% | 1 | 1.19% | 4948 | [email protected] > --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ > 100.00% | 22 |100.00% | 414617 | Total > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 16:57:45 -0400 > From: "Mike Mazarick" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: [arin-ppml] comment - Draft Policy ARIN-2013-8 > Message-ID: > <01c001cf9aef$45776eb0$d0664c10$@[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > RE: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2013-8 > > My comments: > > All of computer science is made up of allocating storage (memory/disk), > de-allocating storage, or moving bits around. Like all organizations, the > current situation we are all in (exhaustion of IPv4 addresses) is due to an > improper de-allocation of IP addresses. The fact that we are in 2014 > after > a 30 year run talking about what to do means that de-allocation is already > good. The current situation is due to desktops/servers/storage units > requiring a new IP address (throwing away the old one) while the core > routers have the same IPs that were in place when the internet was created. > There have been effective solutions put in place by ARIN and others to 'put > a thumb in the dike' of this de-allocation issue. There are many possible > solutions, but the proposed solution means that ARIN will 'go slow' with > allocating the remaining IPv4 addresses stringing out the deployment of > IPv4 > addresses for as long as possible. It is already economically very > difficult for a new entrant to get 'in' and it will be impossible once the > new policies are in place. > > Now, it is not all bad for there not to be any new entrants into a market > (it is the heart of standards), and the market gravitates towards three > major solutions anyway once something becomes a commodity. The real > question is "has the internet become a commodity already, or is there still > some juice left in it?". It is impossible to answer this in advance. I > do know that when ARIN was formed, the biggest problem was giving everyone > internet connectivity, which involved a major expense running wires, buying > wireless spectrum, etc and the investors who made it possible deserve to be > paid a profit because they were very successful at deploying internet > connectivity. > > 1) It appears that there will be no new ISPs and no one will get into > this > business. It is difficult already, but if the draft policy by ARIN is put > in place, it solidifies and codifies ARIN's ratification of this. Although > we all saw the unintended consequences arising when the US Congress made > possible CLECs (which were unsuccessful in the market) and new ISPs are > very > much like CLECs were, it is a very dangerous thing to provide policy that > makes sure there will be no new ISPs because there is no economic incentive > for one to be created. The opportunity to get ahead by creating a new ISP > will soon be removed by ARIN policy. Does ARIN want to enable the entire > country to remain a 'banana republic' where the rich are getting richer at > the expense of the middle class/small business, or does ARIN wish to be > associated with the 'land of opportunity' (not subsidy) by allocating > resources to large and small enterprises on an equal basis? > > 2) There is no need to mess with IPv6 policy. The current situation > which we have all been trying to implement for a decade will not be > enhanced > by this policy change. The change in policy is that IPv4 is getting a lot > more restrictive in allocation and IPv6 will be tied to existing IPv4 > allocations. It really means that there will not be an opportunity for a > new ISP even after the IPv4 addresses are a thing of the past. If it > ain't > broke, don't fix it. There is ample opportunity for ARIN to create an > "intellectual property tax" for payment to ARIN based on existing > allocation > size and market prices for the IP addresses (separate ones for IPv4 and > IPv6). Does ARIN want to make sure only incumbents are able to get IPv6 > addresses? > > 3) If we return to the 'bank of modems' of the dial up modem era, then > every modem has to have its own separate dial tone. There may be a way to > use one phone number (like IP addresses), but the modem pool still has to > have an isolation mechanism per modem. The policy as written will specify > that someone getting into the 'dial up modem' business can't deploy but a > handful of modems at a time, that all modems must be 80% utilized before > any > more can be bought, and that the phone number will change for all modems on > the modem bank if more modems are deployed. An ISP ensures that a > customer > is able to put their own phone number on the banks of modems while a large > enterprise means that they have to control the phone numbers too. It is a > subtle distinction but it at the heart of the question "Does ARIN wish to > have a more relaxed policy for large Enterprises than ISPs?". > > 4) It is important for ARIN to maintain the existing internet policy thru > allocation. It is hard to see how the existing policy change will enhance > an accurate allocation other than there will be less players to watch after > and the expense will be known in advance. Does ARIN want to 'remove the > band-aid slowly' which the proposed policy change does, or does ARIN and > others involved undergo less pain if the IPv4 band-aid is removed quickly? > > 5) Doing something now is akin to 'closing the barn door after the horse > has run off', similar to anyone that gets broken in to buying a burgler > alarm system after they were robbed. In an effort at fairness, because > ARIN must serve both large and small internet clients and because of the > huge allocations in place in 2012-2013 (.5% of the companies got most of > the > IP address allocations from ARIN), the attention has been to be fair in > administration of ARIN policies. Will the existing policy change enable > ARIN to be more or less 'fair' with the remaining IPv4 allocation? > > Mike Mazarick > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 16:21:27 -0700 > From: Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] comment - Draft Policy ARIN-2013-8 > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > I can't tell... do you support or oppose the policy proposal? > > Matthew Kaufman > > On 7/8/2014 1:57 PM, Mike Mazarick wrote: > > RE: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2013-8 > > > > My comments: > > > > All of computer science is made up of allocating storage (memory/disk), > > de-allocating storage, or moving bits around. Like all organizations, > the > > current situation we are all in (exhaustion of IPv4 addresses) is due to > an > > improper de-allocation of IP addresses. The fact that we are in 2014 > after > > a 30 year run talking about what to do means that de-allocation is > already > > good. The current situation is due to desktops/servers/storage units > > requiring a new IP address (throwing away the old one) while the core > > routers have the same IPs that were in place when the internet was > created. > > There have been effective solutions put in place by ARIN and others to > 'put > > a thumb in the dike' of this de-allocation issue. There are many > possible > > solutions, but the proposed solution means that ARIN will 'go slow' with > > allocating the remaining IPv4 addresses stringing out the deployment of > IPv4 > > addresses for as long as possible. It is already economically very > > difficult for a new entrant to get 'in' and it will be impossible once > the > > new policies are in place. > > > > Now, it is not all bad for there not to be any new entrants into a market > > (it is the heart of standards), and the market gravitates towards three > > major solutions anyway once something becomes a commodity. The real > > question is "has the internet become a commodity already, or is there > still > > some juice left in it?". It is impossible to answer this in advance. > I > > do know that when ARIN was formed, the biggest problem was giving > everyone > > internet connectivity, which involved a major expense running wires, > buying > > wireless spectrum, etc and the investors who made it possible deserve to > be > > paid a profit because they were very successful at deploying internet > > connectivity. > > > > 1) It appears that there will be no new ISPs and no one will get into > this > > business. It is difficult already, but if the draft policy by ARIN is > put > > in place, it solidifies and codifies ARIN's ratification of this. > Although > > we all saw the unintended consequences arising when the US Congress made > > possible CLECs (which were unsuccessful in the market) and new ISPs are > very > > much like CLECs were, it is a very dangerous thing to provide policy that > > makes sure there will be no new ISPs because there is no economic > incentive > > for one to be created. The opportunity to get ahead by creating a new > ISP > > will soon be removed by ARIN policy. Does ARIN want to enable the > entire > > country to remain a 'banana republic' where the rich are getting richer > at > > the expense of the middle class/small business, or does ARIN wish to be > > associated with the 'land of opportunity' (not subsidy) by allocating > > resources to large and small enterprises on an equal basis? > > > > 2) There is no need to mess with IPv6 policy. The current situation > > which we have all been trying to implement for a decade will not be > enhanced > > by this policy change. The change in policy is that IPv4 is getting a > lot > > more restrictive in allocation and IPv6 will be tied to existing IPv4 > > allocations. It really means that there will not be an opportunity for > a > > new ISP even after the IPv4 addresses are a thing of the past. If it > ain't > > broke, don't fix it. There is ample opportunity for ARIN to create an > > "intellectual property tax" for payment to ARIN based on existing > allocation > > size and market prices for the IP addresses (separate ones for IPv4 and > > IPv6). Does ARIN want to make sure only incumbents are able to get IPv6 > > addresses? > > > > 3) If we return to the 'bank of modems' of the dial up modem era, then > > every modem has to have its own separate dial tone. There may be a way > to > > use one phone number (like IP addresses), but the modem pool still has to > > have an isolation mechanism per modem. The policy as written will > specify > > that someone getting into the 'dial up modem' business can't deploy but a > > handful of modems at a time, that all modems must be 80% utilized before > any > > more can be bought, and that the phone number will change for all modems > on > > the modem bank if more modems are deployed. An ISP ensures that a > customer > > is able to put their own phone number on the banks of modems while a > large > > enterprise means that they have to control the phone numbers too. It > is a > > subtle distinction but it at the heart of the question "Does ARIN wish to > > have a more relaxed policy for large Enterprises than ISPs?". > > > > 4) It is important for ARIN to maintain the existing internet policy > thru > > allocation. It is hard to see how the existing policy change will > enhance > > an accurate allocation other than there will be less players to watch > after > > and the expense will be known in advance. Does ARIN want to 'remove the > > band-aid slowly' which the proposed policy change does, or does ARIN and > > others involved undergo less pain if the IPv4 band-aid is removed > quickly? > > > > 5) Doing something now is akin to 'closing the barn door after the horse > > has run off', similar to anyone that gets broken in to buying a burgler > > alarm system after they were robbed. In an effort at fairness, because > > ARIN must serve both large and small internet clients and because of the > > huge allocations in place in 2012-2013 (.5% of the companies got most of > the > > IP address allocations from ARIN), the attention has been to be fair in > > administration of ARIN policies. Will the existing policy change enable > > ARIN to be more or less 'fair' with the remaining IPv4 allocation? > > > > Mike Mazarick > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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: 4 > Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 16:38:34 -0700 > From: Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL: Recommended Draft Policy > ARIN-2014-12: Anti-hijack Policy > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Support. Additionally I think that the community has made it clear that > ARIN should be following their own policies (including this one, if > applicable) if/when allocating addresses to themselves. > > Matthew Kaufman > > On 6/24/2014 1:16 PM, ARIN wrote: > > The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 19 June 2014 and decided to > > send the following to an extended last call: > > > > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12: Anti-hijack Policy > > > > The text has been revised. The AC provided the following: > > > > "ARIN-2014-12 has been modified since the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) > > recommended this policy on 15 May 2014, in the following ways; > > > > 1. The second and third sentences of the policy text were modified to > > clarify the original policy intent regarding deviation from the minimum > > allocation size, either smaller or larger as discussed on PPML. These > > changes are considered editorial in nature and do not change the intent > > of the policy. > > > > 2. A sentence was added to the policy statement reflecting the changes > > to the policy text as discussed above." > > > > 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 15 July 2014. 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-2014-12 > > Anti-hijack Policy > > > > Date: 17 June 2014 > > > > AC's assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number > > Resource Policy: > > > > ARIN-2014-12: Anti-hijack Policy enables fair, impartial, and > > technically sound number resource administration by updating the > > guidelines for the allocation of experimental resources to ensure all > > such allocation are documented in Whois, noting their experimental > > status, and provides these allocations may not overlap any other > > allocations. Additionally, part of the original policy text has been > > clarified through editorial changes. > > > > Problem Statement: > > > > ARIN should not give research organizations permission to hijack > > prefixes that have already been allocated. Research organizations > > announcing lit aggregates may receive sensitive production traffic > > belonging to live networks during periods of instability. > > > > Section 11.7 describes more than allocation size therefore updating > > the section heading to something more accurate is appropriate. > > > > Policy statement: > > > > Modify the section 11.7 heading to be more accurate. Modify the first > > sentence to prohibit overlapping assignments. Add text at the end to > > define how research allocations should be designated. > > > > Modify the second and third sentences to clarify the original policy > > intent regarding deviation from the minimum allocation size, smaller > > or larger as discussed on PPML. > > > > 11.7 Resource Allocation Guidelines > > > > The Numbering Resources requested come from the global Internet > > Resource space, do not overlap currently assigned space, and are not > > from private or other non-routable Internet Resource space. The > > allocation size shall be consistent with the existing ARIN minimum > > allocation sizes, unless smaller allocations are intended to be > > explicitly part of the experiment. If an organization requires more > > resources than stipulated by the minimum allocation size in force at > > the time of its request, the request must clearly describe and justify > > why a larger allocation is required. > > > > All research allocations must be registered publicly in whois. Each > > research allocation will be designated as a research allocation with a > > comment indicating when the allocation will end. > > > > Comments: > > > > a. Timetable for implementation: Immediate > > > > b. Anything else: > > _______________________________________________ > > 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: 5 > Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 16:39:37 -0700 > From: Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL: Recommended Draft Policy > ARIN-2014-13: Reduce All Minimum Allocation/Assignment Units to /24 > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > Support. Making it easier for people to receive the last of the IPv4 > pool is a good thing. > > Matthew Kaufman > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 16:41:52 -0700 > From: Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL: Recommended Draft Policy > ARIN-2014-5: Remove 7.2 Lame Delegations > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Support. Even when DNS software bugs made it critical for ARIN and its > predecessors to do their best, this has never been effectively > implemented. The good news is that the bugs were fixed as a result, and > so this is now a non-issue. Also, generally support removing extraneous > language from NRPM. > > Matthew Kaufman > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 109, Issue 4 > ***************************************** >
_______________________________________________ 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.
