I would point out that I submitted proposal 2014-18 which would have
removed needs testing only on the minimum sized allocations – so yes I
am trying to fix it at the low end. I think the Needs testing needs to
be scrapped altogether as was done in the Europe region in favor of
right size testing but that isn’t the battle I’m trying to fight.
A more pointed example of what I find wrong with needs testing rather
than right sizing allocations per the size of the org and their network
would be this:
A group of folks who all have one or more .com domain name allocation(s)
and are all running one or more web sites using those allocations on the
Internet gets together to form a “Community” to Advance the use of the
Internet. At a particular point in time the various opinions of the
members of this community aggregate their then current opinions and Best
Practices on how .com domains should be managed and allocated, and a set
of .com domain allocation policies are formed. Of course since the
policies are essentially an aggregate of the opinions of the members of
that community at that time - they are arbitrary - and hopefully but
there is no guarantee, that there has been wisdom and fairness built
into these policies. As time goes on more opinions from this Community
are aggregated and the .com domain policies are modified and hopefully
improved but of course there is no guarantee of that since they are an
aggregated arbitrary collection of hopefully best practice opinions
formed into policies. One day a very small org decides it is in their
best interest to apply for an allocation for one domain name so they can
have a web site. They are willing to pay the fee for it and they check
the registry database and find that abc123doreme.com has not been
allocated to anyone - and so they apply to have it allocated to them.
Unfortunately for that small org, the policies have been modified over
time and based on applying the then current policies (which are and
always will be arbitrary), the request for that one unallocated domain
name is rejected per current Policy. Of course the effect of this
rejected allocation request is that this small org can NOT bring up
their web site using the denied domain name. Even though it may or may
not have been the intent of this .com domain “Community” to shut out the
small Org from using the Internet in the way they felt was in their best
Interest, THE SMALL ORG HAS BEEN SHUT OUT BY THIS .COM ALLOCATION
“COMMUNITY” via policies)! This small Org doesn’t think it is fair that
the others got a .com allocation - and there is one available - and they
still can’t get even ONE! Many of these folks who now have one or many
.com allocation(s) would not be able to get their existing .com
allocation(s) today under the current .com allocation policies as
currently defined by this .com allocation Community. This small Org
didn’t apply for many .com domain names – they applied for the Minimum
of one of them. And of course they are correct – the polices the .com
allocation Community aggregated did in fact shut out this one small Org
from bringing up their valued web site because they were denied the
resources required to do so by the only official “Community” in their
region that can give them approval. Worse yet other small Orgs continue
to get denied by the current policies. Instead of the Internet being
Advanced by the Community’s Policies which of course was originally put
in the Mission Statement so that everyone would know their Mission,
application of the Policies has done the exact opposite and this small
Org and others who have been denied have suffered.
I know that at least some Members of this ARIN region Community wish I
would stop badgering this community about the unfairness of how policies
are applied to small Orgs, but I will NEVER stop complaining as long as
I can breathe and type, until the aggregate opinions of the ARIN
community come together to right this wrong.
I tried to submit a simple policy change in an attempt to use the
current system of policies to hopefully fix this. I asked members of
this community if they might have any changes to my proposed language to
improve the proposed policy to try and fix this. But in the end my
policy proposal was voted down by the AC without even one email from the
assigned Shepard(s) telling me a vote was even scheduled - and without
checking to see if I might have any additional input for them to
consider before they voted. What a system!
Are there not any members of good will in the ARIN community who are
willing to band together to finally fix this in a responsible way?
Community Members? The Board? ARIN Management? Anyone out there?
/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:*Owen DeLong [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* Tuesday, December 16, 2014 3:14 PM
*To:* Steven Ryerse
*Cc:* Kevin Kargel; [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Use
Then your issue is with how needs basis was being applied to IPv4 3
years ago (and perhaps you also have issues with how it is currently
being applied), rather than needs basis in general.
Thus, your continued railing against all needs testing distracts from
rather than enabling work towards an improvement to IPv4 needs basis
that might resolve your issue. Arguing to eliminate needs testing
creates a binary argument where those of us who believe needs testing is
essential to good stewardship vs. those who want to eliminate it altogether.
On the other hand, working towards a relaxed set of needs tests that
meet the needs of more of the community is something I think most of the
community would get behind. Previous experience has shown this to be
generally true.
Owen
On Dec 16, 2014, at 10:10 , Steven Ryerse
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
My experience was that I applied to ARIN for a /32 IPv6 block, a /22
IPv4 block (the minimum at the time), and an ASN number. The online
application asked me some questions which I answered. Once it was
processed I was notified that the IPv6 block and the ASN number were
allocated to me, and the IPv4 block allocation was denied. This was
about 3 years ago and at the time I thought the questions I was
asked were reasonable. I don’t recall having to provide anything
else except maybe a bill from my upstream provider.
I don’t have an issue with asking an applicant some basic questions
but I have a strong issue with using the answers to those questions
to deny an applicant the minimum block size. Regardless of the
original intent, the effect is the haves keeping the have nots from
getting resources and this falls squarely on small organizations. My
opinion.
/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/
<image001.jpg>℠Eclipse Networks, Inc.
^Conquering Complex Networks ^℠
*From:*Owen DeLong [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:*Monday, December 15, 2014 9:08 PM
*To:*Steven Ryerse
*Cc:*Kevin Kargel;[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:*Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
My point is that even before that discussion, there was and always
has been needs testing for IPv6.
Your claim that what they were advocating for is something new, as
if IPv6 wasn't already subject to needs testing is specious.
As such, I'm not sure what would cause you to want to scream.
Owen
On Dec 15, 2014, at 14:21 , Steven Ryerse
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
No, my request for a IPv6 /32 was fulfilled by ARIN. My IPv6
comment below was concerning discussion of a policy proposal for
a past proposal.
/Steven Ryerse/
/President/
/100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338/
/770.656.1460 - Cell/
/770.399.9099- Office/
<image001.jpg>℠Eclipse Networks, Inc.
^Conquering Complex Networks ^℠
*From:*Owen DeLong [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:*Monday, December 15, 2014 5:14 PM
*To:*Steven Ryerse
*Cc:*Kevin Kargel;[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:*Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
We have always had and still do have needs testing on all IPv6
allocations and assignments.
Do you know anyone who is having trouble getting the IPv6 space
that they need?
Owen
On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:49 , Steven Ryerse
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I saw folks in this Community when discussing a policy
proposal earlier this year – advocating for needs testing on
all IPv6 allocations. I wanted to scream when I read it!
As far as the Internet being different today, ARINs Mission
doesn’t go out the window because of Internet changes.
/Steven Ryerse/
/President/
/100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338/
/770.656.1460 - Cell/
/770.399.9099- Office/
<image001.jpg>℠Eclipse Networks, Inc.
^Conquering Complex Networks ^℠
*From:*[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>[mailto:[email protected]]*On
Behalf Of*Kevin Kargel
*Sent:*Monday, December 15, 2014 1:12 PM
*To:*[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:*[arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
The internet is a different place now and things change and
evolve over time. If a modern day entrepreneur needed IP
space they would have little or no problem finding all the
IPv6 space they need at little or no cost and with virtually
no trouble.
When Jobs and Wozniak were starting up IPV4 was a different
animal.
Kevin
*From:*[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>[mailto:[email protected]]*On
Behalf Of*Steven Ryerse
*Sent:*Monday, December 15, 2014 10:16 AM
*To:*Bill Darte
*Cc:*[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:*Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
By that definition, I wonder if Jobs and Wozniak needed IP
resources today for their garage - could they get them?
Whether you like what they did or not they certainly have
advanced the Internet. And if John and Sue are working in
their garage today and need a /24 or a /22 from ARIN to
further the Internet, can they get them? With today’s
policies – probably not as they might not have a business
plan yet, or signed contract with contractors, or gotten
their funding - or any other measure of need that is
currently indoctrinated in policy. What a shame!
//
/Steven Ryerse/
/President/
/100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338/
/www.eclipse-networks.com <http://www.eclipse-networks.com/>/
/770.656.1460 - Cell/
/770.399.9099- Office/
<image001.jpg>℠Eclipse Networks, Inc.
^Conquering Complex Networks ^℠
*From:*Bill Darte [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:*Monday, December 15, 2014 6:10 AM
*To:*Steven Ryerse
*Cc:*Jo Rhett;[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:*Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
Steven Ryerse said:
In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure
needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of
the real mission of advancing the Internet. Regardless of
your personal definition of need, why is some org who
doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now
precluded from getting resources? How does that advance the
Internet?
The community through ARIN is ensuring that the distribution
of v4 IP addresses are according to its policies which have
been and should continue to be needs-based..IMO. They are
not 'caught up' in the sense that they cannot
proceed...ndeed, they are doing the precise business that
policy and its mission calls for. That some orgs that cannot
meet the needs hurdle are denied...does not mean that others
who truly have a need are not serviced. Those with clear
need advance the Internet and do so demonstrably...whereas
those without a demonstrable need MAY advance the Internet
as well, but its a greater risk to the community and one
which the community has chosen to forgo.
Bill Darte
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Steven Ryerse
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Though it has been a few months since I made those
comments, I appreciate your feedback. Your description
of "walk away with someone else’s belongings" seems to
indicate that somehow the use of the Internet and the IP
addresses that make the use of the Internet possible, is
owned by ARIN or this Community or maybe ARIN and this
Community.
I find that line of thinking about as far as one can get
from the spirit of Jon Postel and the way he went about
advancing the Internet. When I read the original Mission
Statement for ARIN or even the current one, I don't see
that "needs" are more important than the actual mission
of advancement and allocation. Good stewardship should
be practiced but NOT to the detriment of the mission of
advancement and allocation.
In my opinion this community is so caught up in making
sure needs based policies are followed, that it has lost
sight of the real mission of advancing the Internet.
Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is
some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined
by policy) now precluded from getting resources? How
does that advance the Internet? I never met Jon Postel
but from what I've heard about him, I suspect he would
frown on some of the current policies regarding needs.
My comments below and others I have made are intended to
try to bring some balance into the discussion and my
hope is that some day in the near future that will
happen. I certainly don't desire there be no rules at
all but the very loose rules followed by Jon Postel
worked pretty well advancing the Internet. I think we
could loosen the current policies like has been done in
other regions and it would have a positive outcome. My
two cents.
Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
www.eclipse-networks.com <http://www.eclipse-networks.com/>
770.656.1460 <tel:770.656.1460> - Cell
770.399.9099 <tel:770.399.9099>- Office
℠Eclipse Networks, Inc.
Conquering Complex Networks℠
-----Original Message-----
From: Jo Rhett [mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 12:17 AM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
On Oct 27, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Steven Ryerse
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> If in the spirit of trying to prevent fraud
non-fraudulent requests get rejected, then Arin's
mission stops being fulfilled. I think it is important
to make sure the mission is respected first and stopping
fraud second or third or fifth or whatever. We could
stop all fraud by stopping all allocations but of course
that makes no sense. I would also point out that even
when fraud happens Arin's Mission is still being fulfilled.
I completely disagree. There are dozens if not hundreds
of people with non-fraudulent requests who get denied
for insufficient justification. That is ARIN doing their
job successfully in my mind. If widespread fraud occurs
and ARIN does not take action, then I feel strongly that
ARIN would not be doing their job.
> Of course maybe if the needs tests were loosened
fraud would be significantly reduced as there would be
no need to submit fraudulent requests.
Do you mean that if it were permissible to walk away
with someone else’s belongings, then theft would no
longer occur? Your statement is true without making any
sense at all.
> I'm sure an org willing to submit a fraudulent
request would tell you that they do have a need but they
may not happen to meet the current arbitrary (and they
are arbitrary) policy.
I disagree completely. ARIN’s role is to satisfy
needs-based requests. Exercising judgement of whether a
need is realistic is doing their job.
The only thing arbitrary here is your desire for there
to be no rules at all. Deeply amusing, but not helpful
for realistic policy.
--
Jo Rhett
+1 (415) 999-1798 <tel:%2B1%20%28415%29%20999-1798>
Skype: jorhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source
and internet projects.
_______________________________________________
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 [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 [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.
