People trying to sell "ARIN Leads"

[Jon Sands]

Does anyone else get email offers like the below? I get them at least 
once a week from various companies I've never heard of, I'm sure they 
pop up under different names constantly for obvious reasons. Crap like 
this I imagine is why a few of my POC emails listed on my ARIN assets 
get constant spam, I can't imagine how many places there are like this 
scraping then selling ARIN data to marketing outlets. name and email in 
the below *not* scrubbed for anonymity because they need to cut this 
shit out



 Forwarded Message 
Subject:Re: American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) Leads 2022 2
Date:   Thu, 7 Apr 2022 12:16:02 +
From:   Julie Levay 
To: j...@fohdeesha.com 


Hi,

Good Day!

Would you be interested in acquiring contacts of *below?*

*_Lists Contains:_**Operator/Carrier/Service Provider, VAR / Systems 
Integrator, Device Manufacturerr, Infrastructure Provider, Consultant, 
Software / Application Development, Telecom Software Provider, Gov't/ 
Utility / Enterprise, Telecom Equipment Manufacturer, Business and 
Technology Leaders, CTOs, Channel & Partner Managers, Business 
Development Managers, Analysts & Infrastructure Teams from Cloud Service 
Providers, Telecommunications, ISPs, ISVs and the IT Channel and 
Industry serving the cloud community *and more.


*_We provide information like-_*Name, Email, Title, Phone Number and 
Company Details


Please let me know you’re below requirements in detail so that I can 
provide Counts and test file for your review.


*Target Industry: ??*

*Target Geography: ??*

*Waiting for your response.*

*Regards,*

*Julie Levay*

*Demand Generation Specialists.*

*
*

--
Jon Sands
MFI Labs
https://fohdeesha.com/

Re: Puerto Rico (island-wide) power outage

[Sean Donelan]

FCC Activates Disaster Information Reporting for Puerto Rico

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-activates-disaster-information-reporting-puerto-rico

Reports are requested at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, April 8 and every day after 
that by 10:00 a.m. until DIRS is deactivated.

Re: gitlab contact?

[Matthew Petach]

On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 9:57 AM Dave Taht  wrote:

> Most cloud operations websites are kept internal. gitlab's is not,
> which is pretty cool. In looking over this issue, today:
>
> https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/gl-infra/production/-/issues/6768
>
> They are tracking tcp syn retransmits, but not drops or other
> congestion control related info. And
> also using:
>
> sysctl net.ipv4.tcp_notsent_lowat=4294967295;
>
> where we've been getting good results with that set as low as 32k.
> Anyone know anyone at gitlab?
>


It looks like that's their current setting, but the test they're
running will be to drop it to 16K:
sysctl net.ipv4.tcp_notsent_lowat=16384;

It'll be interesting to see what the results of the
test are, and whether 16K becomes the new "normal"
for them.   :)
(cool to see this--I spent a certain amount of my time at
my previous job doing kernel parameter tuning for large
scale services, so seeing what values others are testing
with is good validation.   :)

Matt

Hackathon Registration Opens + Scholarship Applications Available + More

[Nanog News]

*Hackathon Registration is Now Open! *
*Hack Your Way into Fun, Networking + More*

*NANOG 85 Hackathon Dates*

*Intro/Tutorial/Team Formation:* Wed., May 25

*Hacking:* Sat. + Sun., Jun. 4 - 5

*Theme:* Projects that Make a Difference

The NANOG 85 Hackathon will make tools work better for ordinary users. For
this Hackathon, we are looking to expand the event's reach to bring in
non-developers who have an itch to get something fixed.

*REGISTER NOW  *

*Scholarship Applications are Now Available*

NANOG will award two $10,000 scholarships this year (2022) to eligible
undergrad and graduate students in network, electrical or computer
engineering, computer science, and telecommunications.

*The program deadline to submit your application is 3:00 p.m. Central Time
on May 18, 2022.*

*MORE INFO
*


*2022 Sponsorships Available *
*Partner in Building the Internet of Tomorrow *

The Internet, as we know it, was invented by a group of young, progressive
rebels who dared to think differently.

Support NANOG in our mission in the ongoing advancement of an open, secure,
and robust Internet.
*2022 Sponsorship opportunities are now available! *


*MORE INFO
*

[NANOG-announce] Hackathon Registration Opens + Scholarship Applications Available + More

[Nanog News]

*Hackathon Registration is Now Open! *
*Hack Your Way into Fun, Networking + More*

*NANOG 85 Hackathon Dates*

*Intro/Tutorial/Team Formation:* Wed., May 25

*Hacking:* Sat. + Sun., Jun. 4 - 5

*Theme:* Projects that Make a Difference

The NANOG 85 Hackathon will make tools work better for ordinary users. For
this Hackathon, we are looking to expand the event's reach to bring in
non-developers who have an itch to get something fixed.

*REGISTER NOW  *

*Scholarship Applications are Now Available*

NANOG will award two $10,000 scholarships this year (2022) to eligible
undergrad and graduate students in network, electrical or computer
engineering, computer science, and telecommunications.

*The program deadline to submit your application is 3:00 p.m. Central Time
on May 18, 2022.*

*MORE INFO
*


*2022 Sponsorships Available *
*Partner in Building the Internet of Tomorrow *

The Internet, as we know it, was invented by a group of young, progressive
rebels who dared to think differently.

Support NANOG in our mission in the ongoing advancement of an open, secure,
and robust Internet.
*2022 Sponsorship opportunities are now available! *


*MORE INFO
*
___
NANOG-announce mailing list
NANOG-announce@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

gitlab contact?

[Dave Taht]

Most cloud operations websites are kept internal. gitlab's is not,
which is pretty cool. In looking over this issue, today:

https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/gl-infra/production/-/issues/6768

They are tracking tcp syn retransmits, but not drops or other
congestion control related info. And
also using:

sysctl net.ipv4.tcp_notsent_lowat=4294967295;

where we've been getting good results with that set as low as 32k.
Anyone know anyone at gitlab?


-- 
I tried to build a better future, a few times:
https://wayforward.archive.org/?site=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icei.org

Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC

Re: ARIN fee structure (was: re: 2749 routes AT RISK - Re: TIMELY/IMPORTANT)

[John Curran]

> On 7 Apr 2022, at 12:31 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG  wrote:
> 
> Certainly ARIN can do anything to its registry that is within policy. The 
> question is what happens when someone who never signed a contract with ARIN 
> continues to use those resources as internet numbers and announces the routes 
> and other ISPs accept them despite ARIN claiming that they have issued them 
> to a third party? Does ARIN have recourse to prevent these advertisements or 
> the acceptance of them by other providers? Does the third party? Does the 
> registry have any meaning if there is precedence for ignoring its entries in 
> routing?

ARIN maintains the number registry accordingly to the policies developed by the 
community (and address holders have specific rights to their entries in the 
registry) but that does not imply any rights regarding “Internet routing”…  
Network operators have always been free to run their networks (and their 
network routing) as they see fit – the goal of having a unique Internet number 
registry system is simply to make network operation an easier task. 

As to what would happen in your hypothetical squatting scenario, that’s 
entirely up the network operator community – today when it happens it generally 
gets corrected fairly promptly.

Best wishes,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

Re: ARIN fee structure (was: re: 2749 routes AT RISK - Re: TIMELY/IMPORTANT)

[John Curran]

On 7 Apr 2022, at 12:17 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG 
mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote:

So this proactive registering to vote is being imposed on all new LIR 
organizations as well?

New ARIN customers are automatically service members, and can opt (via ARIN 
Online) to become a general member if they wish - see 


Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

Re: ARIN fee structure (was: re: 2749 routes AT RISK - Re: TIMELY/IMPORTANT)

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Apr 7, 2022, at 08:16 , John Curran  wrote:
> 
> On 7 Apr 2022, at 1:58 AM, Owen DeLong via NANOG  > wrote:
>> …
>> Yes, but if you don’t have a contract with ARIN, ARIN’s ability to revoke 
>> your resources because the community decided it might be fun is 
>> significantly less certain for ARIN at best and highly unlikely at worst.
> 
> Mr. Delong - 
> 
> There’s some good news in this regard – ARIN can’t adopt number resource 
> policy that allows revocation of number resources "because the community 
> decided it might be fun" – as the ARIN Bylaws require that "ARIN will 
> continue to utilize an open, transparent multi-stakeholder process for 
> registry policy development.” and ARIN's adopted Policy Develop Process 
> requires that number resource policy enable "Fair and Impartial Number 
> Resource Administration” with defined criteria that are "simple and 
> obtainable.” 

While I’m amused by your pedantic interpretation of my statement, the reality 
is that resources with ARIN under contract can be revoked due to a change in 
policy that makes its way through that policy development process. Fair and 
impartial is a very subjective criteria and can be highly dependent on the 
perspective of the person determining whether or not something is fair and 
impartial.

While I agree that ARIN has not traditionally abused this ability, there is at 
least one RIR that is trying very hard to do so. As such, I have a greater 
tendency to view such things with more suspicion based on experience gained.

> More good news – anyone can participate in the ARIN Policy Development 
> Process, so someone can, if they wish, easily make sure that the policy 
> applicable their number resources meets the above constraints and is not 
> arbitrary or capricious in any manner.   (The ARIN Board of Trustees is the 
> one that makes sure that the ARIN Bylaws and ensure the ARIN PDP are 
> followed, so that again seems like a great reason to get involved in ARIN 
> governance for those have any concerns on that front.)

I’m sure you well know that I am very aware of the ability to participate in 
the ARIN PDP. I may not be the most active participant in the last 15 years of 
ARIN policy development, but I’d bet I’m certainly in the top 50 and almost 
certainly the to 15 by any measure you care to  use.

> As to the last point, ARIN’s ability to manage all of the number resources in 
> all of the number registry is remarkably clear, and ARIN number resource 
> registry policies apply to all blocks in the ARIN registry (including legacy 
> number resources) – as it is ultimately the ARIN members’ registry database 
> to be administered as they direct.   If a legacy resource holder wants a 
> statement of their rights to the number resources issued to them by ARIN or a 
> predecessor registry, they can enter an RSA that provides them the same 
> rights as every other customer that’s been issued number resources  – 
> (1) The exclusive right to be the registrant of the Included Number Resources 
> within the ARIN database;
> 
> (2) The right to use the Included Number Resources within the ARIN database; 
> and
> 
> (3) The right to transfer the registration of the Included Number Resources 
> pursuant to the Policies.
> 
The day the ARIN community decides to come with pitchforks for some large 
legacy holder without an LRSA will make for a very interesting court battle, to 
be certain. Until that happens and there’s an actual decision from a judge, I 
remain a bit less convinced of this than you appear to be. I do understand that 
is the party line. I suspect it’s mostly true, even. However, I suspect that it 
becomes a lot less true if the community’s definition of “fair and impartial” 
drifts away from that of a judge and/or jury.

You and I both recognize that the odds of the community taking such an action 
are relatively low. That the odds of the board ratifying it are even lower. 
Nonetheless, the possibility does exist within the terms of the contract and 
the recourse to the courts available to someone who signed such a contract are 
quite a bit less than what is available to someone who did not explicitly agree 
to allow this in writing.

> (The rights are obviously “limited rights” because there are other rights 
> that the community has to those same entries; 
> e.g. the ability to specify the fields/format of the number resource entry, 
> ability to publish the public portion of the entry, etc.) 
> 
> I.e., your legacy number resources in the ARIN registry are already governed 
> by ARIN policy, as ARIN’s maintains the number resources in ARIN registry as 
> the community directs regardless of whether you enter an RSA.  If a legacy 
> resource holder doesn't want an RSA then that is a perfectly fine choice, but 
> I’d still suggest they participate in the ARIN policy development process 
> since it is quite applicable to their legacy number resources.

Nope. My legacy resources were 

Re: [nanog] 2749 routes AT RISK - Re: TIMELY/IMPORTANT - Approximately 40

[John Curran]

On 7 Apr 2022, at 12:05 PM, Owen DeLong 
mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote:

Alternatively, if ARIN starts billing LRSA+RSA organizations on the basis of 
MAX(IPv4, IPv6), I will also stop calling this double billing.

Mr. Delong –

Organizations with legacy IPv4 resources and IPv6 number resources under a 
registration services plan are already being invoiced one amount based on the 
highest category of IPv4 / IPv6  - i.e. “on the basis of MAX(IPv4, IPv6)” as 
you put it.

However, the “Fee Cap on IPv4 maintenance fees” provided to IPv4 legacy 
resource holders does not apply to such an amount invoiced because the customer 
is being invoiced for a registration services plan that contains multiple items 
[services for IPv4, IPv6, and ASN resources] that are more than just "IPv4 
maintenance fees”.Customers can keep their IPv4 resources in a separate 
billing relationship and then the “Fee Cap on IPv4 maintenance fees” will 
continue to be applied to their “IPv4 registry maintenance fees”, exactly as 
expected.

At this point I’d suggest that we take this off the nanog mailing list - if you 
have further questions feel free to contact ARIN's Registration Services 
Helpdesk (Hours: 7 AM to 7 PM ET, Phone: +1.703.227.0660. 
https://www.arin.net/resources/guide/helpdesk/)

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

Re: ARIN fee structure (was: re: 2749 routes AT RISK - Re: TIMELY/IMPORTANT)

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Apr 7, 2022, at 07:25 , John Curran  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 7 Apr 2022, at 2:08 AM, Owen DeLong > > wrote:
>> 
>>> Indeed - you only emphasize why it is important for organizations to get 
>>> involved in ARIN’s governance…  It is not intended that your sole 
>>> interaction with ARIN be via contractual mechanisms, but rather that 
>>> network operators actually participate as members of the organization.
>> 
>> Perhaps the only bright spot in the recent change to the fee structure is 
>> that I now have membership open to me without having to pay an extra 
>> $500/year for the privilege.
>> 
>> Prior to this most recent change, end-users were not afforded such 
>> participation.
>  
> Correct.
> 
>> Even with the most recent change, the board still opted to default all end 
>> users to second class citizenry unless they each took specific actions to 
>> opt in to participation in ARIN governance.
> 
> Correct as well - with the understanding that the “specific action” that one 
> needs to take is simply asking to be a General Member; i.e. confirming your 
> organization’s intent to vote in ARIN elections and acknowledging that your 
> organization will be publicly listed on the General Member list.   
>  > 
> 
> Having a record of such acknowledgement is desirable for record keeping 
> purposes, and yes, in theory we could have forced the entire 7000+ existing 
> ARIN general members on day one of the membership structure change to 
> undertake the exact same consent process in order to retain their General 
> Member status and be able to vote – but that would have been significant 
> member disenfranchisement for something that ARIN can just as easily obtain 
> for pre-existing general members on a rolling basis going forward.  
> 
> My apologies if the handling of this leaves with the impression of being “a 
> second class” citizen, as that was not intent at all (rather we are just 
> handling a very significant change in our membership structure in the most 
> pragmatic manner possible.) 

So this proactive registering to vote is being imposed on all new LIR 
organizations as well?

Owen

Re: Puerto Rico (island-wide) power outage

[Sean Donelan]

According to poweroutage.us, based on data from LUMA Energy, partial power 
restoration in Puerto Rico.  423,000 customers still without power (down 
from 1.45 million).


Most recent IODA data (ioda.live) shows 82% network accessibility (based 
on active probing).


https://ioda.inetintel.cc.gatech.edu/country/PR

Re: [nanog] 2749 routes AT RISK - Re: TIMELY/IMPORTANT - Approximately 40

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Apr 7, 2022, at 03:21 , John Curran  wrote:
> 
> On 7 Apr 2022, at 1:05 AM, Owen DeLong via NANOG  > wrote:
>> 
>>> On Apr 5, 2022, at 15:04 , John Curran >> > wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Correct - ARIN caps the total registry maintenance fees for legacy resource 
>>> of those who do enter an RSA with ARIN to $150/yr (the cap increasing 
>>> $25/year) – the legacy cap only covers the fees for registration services 
>>> for IPv4 number resources, so it must be billed separately and not part of 
>>> a registration services plan that includes both IPv4 and IPv6 resources. 
>>> 
>>> You can consolidate to one relationship if you wish - and end up paying the 
>>> very same registry fees as everyone else – but then the legacy fee cap 
>>> doesn’t apply because you’ve got IPv4 and IPv6 resources under the same 
>>> service plan.
>>> 
>>> This is a case where no good deed goes unpunished - by providing a registry 
>>> fee cap specifically for legacy resource holders, it can sometimes lead to 
>>> a financial disincentive for legacy holders to get IPv6 resources since 
>>> they would then end up paying the exact same fees as everyone else. 
>> 
>> Well, I’m not as convinced as you clearly are that there are good deeds 
>> involved here.
>> 
>> I proposed a number of ways in which ARIN could have preserved the fee cap 
>> for v4 and allowed LRSA recipients to pay MAX(v4Legacy,V6) vs. the current 
>> situation where they pay SUM(v4Legacy,V6).
> 
> Good Morning Mr. DeLong – 
> 
> ARIN can provide registry services for a customer’s IPv6 resources.
> ARIN can provide registry services for a customer’s IPv4 resources.
> 
> You can be charged separately for these services – in which case the “Fee cap 
> for IPv4 legacy registry services” that ARIN has instituted gets applied to 
> your IPv4 services invoice. 
> You can be charged combined for these services under a single registration 
> services plan – in which case you gain the benefit of being charged only one 
> amount based the larger of the two resource size categories. 
> 
> The “Fee cap for IPv4 legacy registry services” only applies to IPv4 
> services, and if you have a service plan that includes IPv4 and IPv6 services 
> then the fee cap simply doesn’t apply - you’re just not getting a particular 
> pricing benefit (the IPv4 legacy max fee cap in this case) because you’ve 
> opted to combine everything into a single registration services plan for a 
> difference pricing benefit. 
> 
> At no time is a customer being "double-billed” and characterizing it in such 
> a manner is disingenuous.

Customers who choose to retain their LRSA status for their IPv4 resources and 
have IPv6 resources are being billed more for the exact same services 
(generally approximately double) what customers who have both services under 
RSA are being billed.

It is not disingenuous to call this double billing. This did not used to be the 
case under the fee structure that existed when I signed the LRSA. The ARIN 
board chose to make this change and as Mr. Herrin has pointed out, when the 
sands shift, there is limited recourse and one cannot simply terminate the 
contract and return to the pre-contract status quo.

As I said, I have solved this problem for my self by transferring the resources 
that were under LRSA to the RIPE-NCC without contract and without fee.

>> Fortunately, the problem is solved for me. I now have my legacy v4 resources 
>> registered in RIPE-NCC with no fees and no contract and my ARIN v6 is, 
>> indeed, charged separately, but at least I’m no longer being double-billed.
> 
> That’s most excellent - I am glad you’ve found a solution that works for your 
> needs.  I observe that in this case you are being (in your own words) 
> “charged separately” – and that even if a fee applied to your those IPv4 
> registry services, it would not appropriate to refer to having separate fees 
> for these seperate services such as a circumstance of “double billing”.

I would not be being billed by the same organization. I am, in fact, not being 
double billed now. RIPE-NCC is not billing me at all. I have, for all practical 
purposes, returned to my pre-LRSA status quo and I encourage other LRSA 
signatories to consider doing the same at this point.

When I signed the LRSA, it was with the express understanding that I wouldn’t 
be paying additional fees for my IPv4 resources since MAX(IPv4, IPv6) [ARIN’s 
traditional billing model and one which persists to this day with the exception 
of the circumstance the board created when they rejiggered the end user fee 
structure a year or two after I signed the LRSA] was equal to IPv6.

Had ARIN persisted in MAX(IPv4, IPv6) for LRSA signatories, we wouldn’t be 
having this debate. However, ARIN forced this particular subset of 
organizations into SUM(IPv4, IPv6) which is, in effect, double billing them 
compared to RSA-Only organizations.

If ARIN wants to start billing all organizations 

Re: ARIN fee structure (was: re: 2749 routes AT RISK - Re: TIMELY/IMPORTANT)

[John Curran]

On 7 Apr 2022, at 1:58 AM, Owen DeLong via NANOG 
mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote:
…
Yes, but if you don’t have a contract with ARIN, ARIN’s ability to revoke your 
resources because the community decided it might be fun is significantly less 
certain for ARIN at best and highly unlikely at worst.

Mr. Delong -

There’s some good news in this regard – ARIN can’t adopt number resource policy 
that allows revocation of number resources "because the community decided it 
might be fun" – as the ARIN Bylaws require that "ARIN will continue to utilize 
an open, transparent multi-stakeholder process for registry policy 
development.” and ARIN's adopted Policy Develop Process requires that number 
resource policy enable "Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration” with 
defined criteria that are "simple and obtainable.”

More good news – anyone can participate in the ARIN Policy Development Process, 
so someone can, if they wish, easily make sure that the policy applicable their 
number resources meets the above constraints and is not arbitrary or capricious 
in any manner.   (The ARIN Board of Trustees is the one that makes sure that 
the ARIN Bylaws and ensure the ARIN PDP are followed, so that again seems like 
a great reason to get involved in ARIN governance for those have any concerns 
on that front.)

As to the last point, ARIN’s ability to manage all of the number resources in 
all of the number registry is remarkably clear, and ARIN number resource 
registry policies apply to all blocks in the ARIN registry (including legacy 
number resources) – as it is ultimately the ARIN members’ registry database to 
be administered as they direct.   If a legacy resource holder wants a statement 
of their rights to the number resources issued to them by ARIN or a predecessor 
registry, they can enter an RSA that provides them the same rights as every 
other customer that’s been issued number resources  –

(1) The exclusive right to be the registrant of the Included Number Resources 
within the ARIN database;

(2) The right to use the Included Number Resources within the ARIN database; and

(3) The right to transfer the registration of the Included Number Resources 
pursuant to the Policies.

(The rights are obviously “limited rights” because there are other rights that 
the community has to those same entries;
e.g. the ability to specify the fields/format of the number resource entry, 
ability to publish the public portion of the entry, etc.)

I.e., your legacy number resources in the ARIN registry are already governed by 
ARIN policy, as ARIN’s maintains the number resources in ARIN registry as the 
community directs regardless of whether you enter an RSA.  If a legacy resource 
holder doesn't want an RSA then that is a perfectly fine choice, but I’d still 
suggest they participate in the ARIN policy development process since it is 
quite applicable to their legacy number resources.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

AT& T peering Contact?

[Justin Wilson (Lists)]

Folks, 
I need an ATT Wireless/ATT Mobility peering contact.  The emails on 
their peeringdb entries bounce back as non existent.  Have a problem with a 
prefix that works everywhere except when folks are on AT LTE.


Justin Wilson
j...@mtin.net

—
https://j2sw.com (AS399332)
https://blog.j2sw.com - Podcast and Blog

Re: ARIN fee structure (was: re: 2749 routes AT RISK - Re: TIMELY/IMPORTANT)

[John Curran]

On 7 Apr 2022, at 2:08 AM, Owen DeLong 
mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote:

Indeed - you only emphasize why it is important for organizations to get 
involved in ARIN’s governance…  It is not intended that your sole interaction 
with ARIN be via contractual mechanisms, but rather that network operators 
actually participate as members of the organization.

Perhaps the only bright spot in the recent change to the fee structure is that 
I now have membership open to me without having to pay an extra $500/year for 
the privilege.

Prior to this most recent change, end-users were not afforded such 
participation.

Correct.

Even with the most recent change, the board still opted to default all end 
users to second class citizenry unless they each took specific actions to opt 
in to participation in ARIN governance.

Correct as well - with the understanding that the “specific action” that one 
needs to take is simply asking to be a General Member; i.e. confirming your 
organization’s intent to vote in ARIN elections and acknowledging that your 
organization will be publicly listed on the General Member list.   


Having a record of such acknowledgement is desirable for record keeping 
purposes, and yes, in theory we could have forced the entire 7000+ existing 
ARIN general members on day one of the membership structure change to undertake 
the exact same consent process in order to retain their General Member status 
and be able to vote – but that would have been significant member 
disenfranchisement for something that ARIN can just as easily obtain for 
pre-existing general members on a rolling basis going forward.

My apologies if the handling of this leaves with the impression of being “a 
second class” citizen, as that was not intent at all (rather we are just 
handling a very significant change in our membership structure in the most 
pragmatic manner possible.)

Best wishes,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

NANOG 85 Hackathon Call for Projects

[Valerie Wittkop]

We need you! The NANOG Hackathon Committee is calling for project
developers/maintainers to participate in the NANOG 85 Hackathon
.

Wednesday, May 25, 2022 - Intro/Tutorial/Team Formation (via Zoom)

Saturday + Sunday, June 4-5, 2022 - Hacking (via Zoom and/or in Montréal)

An essential part of NANOG conferences, our Hackathons are designed to be
both fun and engaging, as well as provide a platform that builds community
and fosters greater networking and programming knowledge. NANOG Hackathons
are hands-on, and educational at their core — directly supporting the most
critical aspects of our mission. All levels are welcome to participate, and
as always, Hackathon registration
 is free.

Theme: Projects that Make a Difference

The NANOG 85 Hackathon will focus on the theme of making tools work better
for ordinary users. For this Hackathon, we are looking to expand the reach
of the event to bring in non-developers who have an itch to get something
fixed. So this is your opportunity to work with other community members to
fix that itch and make life better for everyone. The improvements can
include better tutorials, documentation, cookie-cutter templates that
people can build on when accessing an API - in short, stuff that you would
like to see that enables better use of the tools you use or want to use.

Of course, we will welcome our usual range of project proposals if you want
to dive deep into the code and hack in a communal environment, so send in
those proposals as well.

We are asking those who wish to bring a project be prepared to generally
cover the items listed here.

   -

   Provide an intro/mini-tutorial on the skills needed to successfully hack
   on said project
   -

   Use time between the intro (May 25th) and the Hackathon (June 4-5) to be
   available for introductions and general questions relating to the project
   -

   Create a “ReadMe” file or webpage with the following information
   -

  Languages used in the project
  -

  Good first issues (if using GitHub on the project)
  -

  How to set-up/run tests in the development environment
  -

  How to use sandbox environment (if you have one)
  -

  Documentation updates/issues that need review/correcting


In exchange for your work, NANOG will offer you a complimentary
registration for NANOG 85 taking place in Montréal June 6-8, 2022. Learn
more about the Hackathon schedule here:
https://www.nanog.org/events/nanog-85-hackathon/

If you are interested in bringing a project to the NANOG 85 Hackathon,
please send a message to hackathon-supp...@nanog.org. We look forward to
working with you!

-- 
*Valerie Wittkop*
Program DirectorOn behalf of the NANOG Hackathon Committee

[NANOG-announce] NANOG 85 Hackathon Call for Projects

[Valerie Wittkop]

We need you! The NANOG Hackathon Committee is calling for project
developers/maintainers to participate in the NANOG 85 Hackathon
.

Wednesday, May 25, 2022 - Intro/Tutorial/Team Formation (via Zoom)

Saturday + Sunday, June 4-5, 2022 - Hacking (via Zoom and/or in Montréal)

An essential part of NANOG conferences, our Hackathons are designed to be
both fun and engaging, as well as provide a platform that builds community
and fosters greater networking and programming knowledge. NANOG Hackathons
are hands-on, and educational at their core — directly supporting the most
critical aspects of our mission. All levels are welcome to participate, and
as always, Hackathon registration
 is free.

Theme: Projects that Make a Difference

The NANOG 85 Hackathon will focus on the theme of making tools work better
for ordinary users. For this Hackathon, we are looking to expand the reach
of the event to bring in non-developers who have an itch to get something
fixed. So this is your opportunity to work with other community members to
fix that itch and make life better for everyone. The improvements can
include better tutorials, documentation, cookie-cutter templates that
people can build on when accessing an API - in short, stuff that you would
like to see that enables better use of the tools you use or want to use.

Of course, we will welcome our usual range of project proposals if you want
to dive deep into the code and hack in a communal environment, so send in
those proposals as well.

We are asking those who wish to bring a project be prepared to generally
cover the items listed here.

   -

   Provide an intro/mini-tutorial on the skills needed to successfully hack
   on said project
   -

   Use time between the intro (May 25th) and the Hackathon (June 4-5) to be
   available for introductions and general questions relating to the project
   -

   Create a “ReadMe” file or webpage with the following information
   -

  Languages used in the project
  -

  Good first issues (if using GitHub on the project)
  -

  How to set-up/run tests in the development environment
  -

  How to use sandbox environment (if you have one)
  -

  Documentation updates/issues that need review/correcting


In exchange for your work, NANOG will offer you a complimentary
registration for NANOG 85 taking place in Montréal June 6-8, 2022. Learn
more about the Hackathon schedule here:
https://www.nanog.org/events/nanog-85-hackathon/

If you are interested in bringing a project to the NANOG 85 Hackathon,
please send a message to hackathon-supp...@nanog.org. We look forward to
working with you!

-- 
*Valerie Wittkop*
Program DirectorOn behalf of the NANOG Hackathon Committee
___
NANOG-announce mailing list
NANOG-announce@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

Re: [nanog] 2749 routes AT RISK - Re: TIMELY/IMPORTANT - Approximately 40

[John Curran]

On 7 Apr 2022, at 1:05 AM, Owen DeLong via NANOG 
mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote:

On Apr 5, 2022, at 15:04 , John Curran 
mailto:jcur...@arin.net>> wrote:
...
Correct - ARIN caps the total registry maintenance fees for legacy resource of 
those who do enter an RSA with ARIN to $150/yr (the cap increasing $25/year) – 
the legacy cap only covers the fees for registration services for IPv4 number 
resources, so it must be billed separately and not part of a registration 
services plan that includes both IPv4 and IPv6 resources.

You can consolidate to one relationship if you wish - and end up paying the 
very same registry fees as everyone else – but then the legacy fee cap doesn’t 
apply because you’ve got IPv4 and IPv6 resources under the same service plan.

This is a case where no good deed goes unpunished - by providing a registry fee 
cap specifically for legacy resource holders, it can sometimes lead to a 
financial disincentive for legacy holders to get IPv6 resources since they 
would then end up paying the exact same fees as everyone else.

Well, I’m not as convinced as you clearly are that there are good deeds 
involved here.

I proposed a number of ways in which ARIN could have preserved the fee cap for 
v4 and allowed LRSA recipients to pay MAX(v4Legacy,V6) vs. the current 
situation where they pay SUM(v4Legacy,V6).

Good Morning Mr. DeLong –

ARIN can provide registry services for a customer’s IPv6 resources.
ARIN can provide registry services for a customer’s IPv4 resources.

You can be charged separately for these services – in which case the “Fee cap 
for IPv4 legacy registry services” that ARIN has instituted gets applied to 
your IPv4 services invoice.
You can be charged combined for these services under a single registration 
services plan – in which case you gain the benefit of being charged only one 
amount based the larger of the two resource size categories.

The “Fee cap for IPv4 legacy registry services” only applies to IPv4 services, 
and if you have a service plan that includes IPv4 and IPv6 services then the 
fee cap simply doesn’t apply - you’re just not getting a particular pricing 
benefit (the IPv4 legacy max fee cap in this case) because you’ve opted to 
combine everything into a single registration services plan for a difference 
pricing benefit.

At no time is a customer being "double-billed” and characterizing it in such a 
manner is disingenuous.

Fortunately, the problem is solved for me. I now have my legacy v4 resources 
registered in RIPE-NCC with no fees and no contract and my ARIN v6 is, indeed, 
charged separately, but at least I’m no longer being double-billed.

That’s most excellent - I am glad you’ve found a solution that works for your 
needs.  I observe that in this case you are being (in your own words) “charged 
separately” – and that even if a fee applied to your those IPv4 registry 
services, it would not appropriate to refer to having separate fees for these 
seperate services such as a circumstance of “double billing”.

Best wishes,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

Re: ARIN fee structure (was: re: 2749 routes AT RISK - Re: TIMELY/IMPORTANT)

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> 
> Indeed - you only emphasize why it is important for organizations to get 
> involved in ARIN’s governance…  It is not intended that your sole interaction 
> with ARIN be via contractual mechanisms, but rather that network operators 
> actually participate as members of the organization.

Perhaps the only bright spot in the recent change to the fee structure is that 
I now have membership open to me without having to pay an extra $500/year for 
the privilege.

Prior to this most recent change, end-users were not afforded such 
participation.

Even with the most recent change, the board still opted to default all end 
users to second class citizenry unless they each took specific actions to opt 
in to participation in ARIN governance.


Owen