Hi PPML and Randy and Steven,
Subject change and sorry for the top post.
WRT ARIN Draft Policy 2014-14, Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4
Transfers, this started out as "ARIN-prop-204 Removing Needs Test from
Small IPv4 Transfers on 16 April 2014. At the 15 May 2014 ARIN AC
teleconference, the motion to move the proposal to a Draft Policy was
passed unanimously. Prerequisite to this action was agreement among the AC
present that, inter alia, the proposal had a clear problem statement.
It might still.
So whatever other failings 2014-14 may have, a unclear problem statement
would seem, at least by the AC's definition, not to be one of them.
As far as the why, ARIN is a community of often polarized interests. The
majority does not, and equally importantly, should not, automatically get
to quash all things it does not agree with. Obversely, minorities, even
despised ones, have the right to work for incremental change in their
interests and receive a fair hearing. This would appear to include the
right to rational discussion, even if irritation sometimes shows up.
The shepherd's job is made more difficult by a lot of this talking in
code. Clearly this is a beloved behavior, so I won't say cut it out. But.
In the case of 2014-14, I don't know if it is going to be enough to say 'I
don't like pie', or 'I don't like pie because pie sucks', or 'I don't
care. I am never going to like pie', or even 'I am so much smarter than
you, that you don't even know pie'. Please, no one take this personally.
Shepherds are currently contemplating rewriting 2014-14 to accomodate
objections even though some objections more resemble the above. I am not
completely optimistic about either the rectitude or the efficacy of this
move, but am thinking and working on it.
If anyone might care to comment on the following three choices, I
would be grateful:
1) Abandon 2014-14 entirely because... (Don't say pie.)
2) This part of it is clearly wrong because..., do this to fix it.
3) Advance it. I haven't heard any convincing opposition.
TIA and in reverse to everyone for the comments and the courtesies.
John Springer
On Tue, 23 Dec 2014, Randy Carpenter wrote:
I think many of us are still wondering why. As stated, what is the problem that is trying
to be solved here? All of this talk about fairness, but the solution seems to be to make
it much more unfair by allowing anyone to get a large chunk of resources "just
because," rather than allowing valid companies (particularly small ones) to get the
resources they need.
I agree that post-runout the situation is significantly different. However,
until that happens, why don't we find useful ways of utilizing the resources
that are left in the free pool?
I have assisted several small ISPs get resources very recently. It has never
been easier. There still has not been a reason stated for any of this
discussion, other than vague statements of things that happened in the past, or
that we should do the same as RIPE. Experience from other regions is certainly
valuable information. However, that does not automatically mean we should
mirror their policies. There are separate RIRs for a reason.
Again, I will say, that if you clearly articulate the problem you are trying to
rectify by policy change, it will be much easier for everyone to have a real
conversation about it.
thanks,
-Randy
----- On Dec 23, 2014, at 5:20 PM, Steven Ryerse [email protected]
wrote:
My premise was that the ARIN region needs to implement something similar to
RIPE-604. Whether you agree the equivalent of RIPE-604 is good for the ARIN
region or not, it is not a ridiculous discussion.
Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office
? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
Conquering Complex Networks?
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Winters [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 5:15 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
This whole discussion is ridiculous.
Why are you arguing about a fix and what needs to be changed when you have not
clearly defined the problem let alone gotten any consensus that there is a
problem that needs fixing? All I have seen are vague claims and/or statements.
Your premise seems to be that anyone that wants something should be able to
get it no questions asked. To me, that is like saying that we should allow
children to drive vehicles (maybe limit them to a compact car). After all, the
legal driving age is just an arbitrary number defined by a community.
I think if you are serious about your cause, you need to go back to the
beginning and clearly and concisely state what specifically the perceived
problem is, why it is a problem, and why needs testing should be eliminated.
There are many intelligent people on this list and the better they understand
what you think is broken, the more likely the community is to come up with a
solution that works for everyone.
Mike Winters
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Steven Ryerse
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 3:23 PM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
I find your continuing unprofessional tone towards me insulting and I would
appreciate it if you would cease using it! I didn't realize that this
Community forum is only for folks who think exactly the same as you or the same
as the vocal majority. I find very little dissent here in this Community and
it is from dissent that improvements are made. Over the years I've seen an
occasional dissenting opinion from an Org (usually small )and they immediately
get shot down and I never see comments from them again so I assume they decide
it isn't worth their time to continue commenting. As you have noticed I have
chosen to not go away and will continue participating and commenting as I'm
told this community is the only place to effect policy change for ARIN
allocations.
As for your argument below. To say that the experience in RIPE has no bearing
here is ridiculous. They are not identical but they are similar. Certainly
their experience is worth studying. RIPE seems to be handling the challenge of
serving many disparate countries from all sides of the ideological spectrum
with their relaxed needs testing per ripe-604 reasonably well. To dismiss
their real world experiment in relaxed needs testing and what we can learn from
it in this region out of hand is dismissing the opportunity to improve ARINs
policies would not be good stewardship. My opinion.
Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office
? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
Conquering Complex Networks?
-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 5:27 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
Didn't your mommy ever teach you that just because Europe does something doesn't
mean you need to do it also?
You cannot have it both ways. ARIN exists as a regulatory body. If it's
usefulness as a regulatory body is over then call for it's dissolution.
Otherwise, it's going to do what it's supposed to do which is to prevent the
IP number space from becoming hopelessly fragmented and router slots from
ballooning.
Europe can get away with ripe-604 precisely because a) it has no Legacy
IPv4 and b) a lot of it has switched over to IPv6 already. Plus there is a lot
more regulation of NETWORKS in Europe. Are you forgetting RIPE assigns IP
addressing to Russia? Are you going to argue that's now a free democracy with
an open market now? That just happens to have had the same dictat...I mean
"president" for the last generation? Please, stop before you embarrass
yourself.
I would support a call for no needs testing on IPv6 allocations. Of course once
obtained then it would be the end users problem to get their upstream to route
it. But if more end users obtained IPv6 then it would increase the push on the
retail networks (Frontier, RoadRunner, SBC
CenturyLink) to have their support folks at least learn about what it is!!!
But for IPv4? I see no reason to turn it into a free for all.
Ted
On 12/21/2014 11:41 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
When the government meddles and plays favorites then capitalism stops
working. At the low end of allocation policy it needs to be
capitalistic and all we need is the equivalent of the Anti-Trust laws
in policy to keep the big guys in check. 2014-14 moves in this
direction. We certainly don't need Anti-Trust equivalent policies on
the low end of allocations.
Some folks here respond to me as if I'm a heretic and my input is
radical and if implemented the world would somehow end. I disagree.
I have recently been advocating removing needs test just from the ARIN
Minimum block size allocation and my proposed 2014-18 would have done
that. A proposal to do a whole lot more than I have proposed - not
only has been proposed in the RIPE region - but tweaked, improved, and
passed - as ripe-604. Are the folks who proposed and voted to pass
ripe-604 heretics too? I think not. I think they realized that needs
testing couldn't save IPv4 and wanted to level the playing field so
they passed ripe-604. The world has not ended in Europe because of it.
I think we need an ARIN equivalent of ripe-604 but I figured that I
would start at the low end where I think small Orgs would benefit just
trying to remove the needs testing for Orgs who just need the minimum
and don't need a minimum block more than once per year. This would be
a pretty small change to current policy and if advocating for that
makes me a heretic then so be it! My two cents.
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: Ted Mittelstaedt
[mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 4:09 AM To:
Steven Ryerse Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet
Fairness
Your not talking about a Capitalistic model your talking about a
Laissez-faire model. While this might make some Libertarians have wet
dreams it is a recipe for anarchy which is why no economy on Earth
operates this way.
What is generally understood about Capitalism today is that the
catch-22 of Capitalism is that if you have a market that is completely
controlled by the government, that is the opposite of Capitalism - but
if you have a market that has zero government controls it immediately
devolves into a set of monopolies which are also the opposite of
Capitalism.
In short, the cost of real economic freedom is constant government
tinkering.
I realize it's difficult to understand for a lot of people. The Tea
Party in the United States is filled with people who don't understand
it.
ARIN resource allocations are as close to Capitalism today as we are
going to get. Once the transfer market was approved, that ended the
last vestige of authoritarian control by ARIN.
The needs testing is far less intrusive than government controls on
automobiles, yet nobody would argue today the US does not have
competition in the automobile market.
Ted
On 12/19/2014 3:59 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
I'm not being ignorant I am trying to get to bottom of the
discussion. I wish ARINs resources were issued by ARIN in a
capitalistic manner. Then as long as an Org is willing to pay the
going rate resources could be acquired guaranteed as long as there
are sellers. There is no needs testing in that model just supply and
demand and the ability to pay. How do we change to the Capitalistic
model from what we got now?
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 Ted Mittelstaedt
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 11:23 AM To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
First point here Steven is you have completely ignored and failed to
respond to my first comment regarding why ARIN is the way it is
- because it exists in a capitalistic society - because you have no
answer for that.
I do not really believe for a second that you really want an honest
debate on this issue. What you are doing is sitting back and cherry
picking weak arguments to respond to, and ignoring strong ones. So I
am not going to waste much more time with you on this.
But I will say that your comment:
" If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that really make it
OK to start denying small Orgs .com domain name requests?"
is one of the most ignorant I've seen on this list in quite a while.
The DNS system exists to make IP addresses that are hard to remember,
replaced by domain names that are easy to remember. The average
English speaking adult knows about 50,000 English words.
There's over 100 million .com domain names registered at this point.
We have far and away exceeded the number of English .com one word
domain names that an average person would know.
Therefore we have long ago "run out" of .com domain names. Oh sure,
you can still register new .com domain names that are nonsense like
fdgcjghhgeafvrar.com or you can make up elaborate long sentences like
thisismynewdomainanemisntitkewel.com and register those names, but
neither of those meets the bar of being an easy to remember name.
They are, in fact, harder to remember than the IP addresses that they
are supposed to make "easy to remember"
There
On 12/18/2014 9:15 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
Thanks for your comments! Actually the total number of possible
.com permutations is limited too. IPv4 addresses and .com domain
names are both just Internet resources that Internet users need to
use the Internet. Obviously there are less IPv4 addresses than .com
combinations, but IPv4 is still the only way to access most of the
Internet. While ARIN has resources to allocate - I'm absolutely
fine limiting the size of an allocation to match the size of an Org
and their network, but I'm not fine with denying an Org any
resources.
Also IPv4 cannot somehow be saved by conservation. Regardless of
any policy, ARIN will run out of IPv4 probably within the next year.
If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that really make it
OK to start denying small Orgs .com domain name requests?
Steven Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110,
Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099- Office
? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks?
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:59 AM To:
[email protected] Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 04:35:41PM +0000, Steven Ryerse wrote:
If it is not OK to deny the Minimum domain (available) name to an
Org, then it isn?t OK to deny an Org the Minimum IP allocation.
They are both Internet resources.
The analogy seems faulty to me. The number space is finite (and in
the case of v4, not very large). The name space in any given
registry is admittedly not infinite, since (1) it's limited to
labels 63 octets long from the LDH repertoire and (2) useful
mnemonics are generally shorter than 63 octets and usually a
wordlike thing in some natural language. There are, however, lots
of registries (more all the time! Thanks, ICANN!); and last I
checked neither info nor biz was anything close to the size (or
utility) of com, even though they've both been around since 2001 and
have rather similar registration rules. So, there is an argument in
favour of tight rules for allocation of v4 numbers that is not
available in the name case.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan [email protected]
_______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
