Re: [arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2019
The right answer is a return to an enviroment where there is no address shortage. Of course that spells IPv6. Getting back to the the simple record keeping role is already there in IPv6 when there is no shortage of addresseses. The only issue is getting to a tipping point where v6 is used more than v4. Without a shortage, we can get back to the end to end way of life, and not have to deal with CIDR, NAT or any other address conservation method. It also brings RIR's back to their original record keeping role, without having to police the number of addresses that a member needs. I would like to get back to end to end, even for IOT devices. I would like to directly address them as well, rather than relaying via the maker's server. I would like some of those things like doorbell cameras, but I do not want to be dependent on other peoples servers, or orphaned devices caused when the servers are removed. That way, any downtime is 100% under my control. V6 gets us back to the way of the internet in the early days when every host had a public address. Of course getting everyone else who has not adopted it has always been the challenge. I doubt there is any magic bullet to IPv6 adoption, but clearly IPv4 cannot be the long term answer, with less than 1 address per living person available. Albert Erdmann Network Administrator Paradise On Line Inc. On Fri, 3 Jan 2020, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: In message , hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: There are those that wanted to become landlords of IPv4. I think this kinda shoots down those hopes. It would appear so. To be frank however, I'm not fully persuaded that the term "landlord" should be so cavalierly tossed around as an epithet with distinctly negative connotations. After all, landlords are job creators! Just ask our Job Creator in Chief! Consideration should also be given to the possibility that Internet landlords could be a good thing. Imagine if you will that in some cases, counties and municipalities might snatch up blocks of IP addresses and then use them to provide the Internet equivalent of Section 8 housing for poor folks who would otherwise be obliged to go without. But seriously folks, the truth is that I myself have never resolved my own internal debate between top-down socialism and unfettered laissez faire capitalism. Thus, one day I'll be out in the streets defending the absolute right of Walmart to chase homeless people off their private property, and the next day I'll be out in the streets protesting the stranglehold that the 1% has on the media. In theory, the entire RIR system could simply cease to exist, except for their record keeping role, and all of the remaining IPs could be sold off to the highest bidders. This would result in the laissez faire capitalism end game for IP addresses, and yes, there would inevitably be robber baron landlords and perhaps even an eventual very destructive attempt on someone's part to "corner the market". Or we can just keep things as they are now, which is a kind of benevolent socialism where we make at least some effort, pretentious or otherwise, to give "to each according to his needs." I don't know the right answer, and to be frank, I worry a lot about anybody who thinks that they do. The present system has worked for quite a long time, but not without what I see as many notable failures, the most grotesque of which having only been recently uncovered by myself in a different region. One short anecdote may help to illustrate the fundamentally insoluable economics conundrum. Recently, while talking via skype to my new friend Jan in South Africa, he noted to me that the government there is now being forced... by dire financial circumstances... to seriously consider privatizing some or all of Eskom, the country's government-owned and massively money-losing electric utility. (Note also that Eskom's huge financial troubles have been linked to allegations of corruption.) I laughed when Jan told me this, and informed him that here in my home state of California, our governor has publicly speculated about going in the exact opposite direction... perhaps having the state take over the troubled and embattled Pacific Gas & Electric Company... PG in the wake of its apparent failures to perform routine maintenance... generally considered to be the root cause of numerous massive wildfires... thereby hopefully insuring that in future, paying regular dividends to shareholders will no longer take precedence over badly needed maintenance expenditures. So which is better? Socialist state control or laissez faire capitalism? I think it's funamentally an insoluable debate, an economic Catch-22 in which you are damned if you do and damned if you don't, and that at base anyone vigorously arguing in favor of one or the other is really arguing only in favor of rearranging the pieces on the board, without materially changing the game, and is really just arguing in favor of exchanging
Re: [arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2019
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 3:44 PM Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > To be frank however, I'm not fully persuaded that the term "landlord" > should be so cavalierly tossed around as an epithet with distinctly > negative connotations. [...] I don't know the right answer, Taxes. That's how it works in real estate anyway. You can own as much land as you can afford but you have to pay taxes on all of it. And you can lose it to both clean-it-or-lein-it and adverse possession. And you have liability when folks get hurt on your land. And there are tax incentives to push ownership over leasing when folks who want it come knocking. So lots of down sides to owning land that you're not using as effectively as your neighbors. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin b...@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/ ___ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2019
In message <007801d5c283$ab54e6b0$01feb410$@iptrading.com>, "Mike Burns" wrote: >You are forgetting that anybody can do this in RIPE today. >And yesterday. You say that as if it is strictly a theoretical possibility. Regards, rfg ___ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2019
In message , hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: >There are those that wanted to become landlords of IPv4. I think this >kinda shoots down those hopes. It would appear so. To be frank however, I'm not fully persuaded that the term "landlord" should be so cavalierly tossed around as an epithet with distinctly negative connotations. After all, landlords are job creators! Just ask our Job Creator in Chief! Consideration should also be given to the possibility that Internet landlords could be a good thing. Imagine if you will that in some cases, counties and municipalities might snatch up blocks of IP addresses and then use them to provide the Internet equivalent of Section 8 housing for poor folks who would otherwise be obliged to go without. But seriously folks, the truth is that I myself have never resolved my own internal debate between top-down socialism and unfettered laissez faire capitalism. Thus, one day I'll be out in the streets defending the absolute right of Walmart to chase homeless people off their private property, and the next day I'll be out in the streets protesting the stranglehold that the 1% has on the media. In theory, the entire RIR system could simply cease to exist, except for their record keeping role, and all of the remaining IPs could be sold off to the highest bidders. This would result in the laissez faire capitalism end game for IP addresses, and yes, there would inevitably be robber baron landlords and perhaps even an eventual very destructive attempt on someone's part to "corner the market". Or we can just keep things as they are now, which is a kind of benevolent socialism where we make at least some effort, pretentious or otherwise, to give "to each according to his needs." I don't know the right answer, and to be frank, I worry a lot about anybody who thinks that they do. The present system has worked for quite a long time, but not without what I see as many notable failures, the most grotesque of which having only been recently uncovered by myself in a different region. One short anecdote may help to illustrate the fundamentally insoluable economics conundrum. Recently, while talking via skype to my new friend Jan in South Africa, he noted to me that the government there is now being forced... by dire financial circumstances... to seriously consider privatizing some or all of Eskom, the country's government-owned and massively money-losing electric utility. (Note also that Eskom's huge financial troubles have been linked to allegations of corruption.) I laughed when Jan told me this, and informed him that here in my home state of California, our governor has publicly speculated about going in the exact opposite direction... perhaps having the state take over the troubled and embattled Pacific Gas & Electric Company... PG in the wake of its apparent failures to perform routine maintenance... generally considered to be the root cause of numerous massive wildfires... thereby hopefully insuring that in future, paying regular dividends to shareholders will no longer take precedence over badly needed maintenance expenditures. So which is better? Socialist state control or laissez faire capitalism? I think it's funamentally an insoluable debate, an economic Catch-22 in which you are damned if you do and damned if you don't, and that at base anyone vigorously arguing in favor of one or the other is really arguing only in favor of rearranging the pieces on the board, without materially changing the game, and is really just arguing in favor of exchanging one set of crooks for a different one... no offense to any present company intended. Regards, rfg ___ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2019
You are forgetting this is ARIN no RIPE. Regards On Fri, 3 Jan 2020, 19:18 Mike Burns, wrote: > You are forgetting that anybody can do this in RIPE today. > And yesterday. > And still the world spins. > Happy New Year to the list! > > Regards, > Mike > > > -Original Message- > From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of > hostmas...@uneedus.com > Sent: Friday, January 03, 2020 4:59 PM > To: Fernando Frediani > Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory Council Meeting Results - December > 2019 > > There are those that wanted to become landlords of IPv4. I think this > kinda shoots down those hopes. > > Albert > > > On Fri, 3 Jan 2020, Fernando Frediani wrote: > > > What a great thing to read about ARIN-2019-18 and a good message to > > 'lessors-to-be' or 'number resource landlords'. Well done AC. > > > > On 03/01/2020 18:42, ARIN wrote: > >> The minutes from the ARIN Advisory Council's 19 December 2019 meeting > >> have been published: > >> > >> https://www.arin.net/about/welcome/ac/meetings/2019_1219/ > >> > >> Regarding Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18, the AC has released the > >> following > >> statement: > >> > >> "At its monthly meeting on December 19 2019, the ARIN AC voted > >> unanimously to abandon ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to > Non-Connected Networks. > >> > >> At the public policy meeting at ARIN 44 and on PPML, there was near > >> universal opposition to expanding demonstrated need to encompass > >> acquiring more space for the purposes of leasing it decoupled from > >> any requirement for the lessor to be providing connectivity services. > >> Reasons for opposition included that this would facilitate creating a > >> class of "number resource landlords" as well as the observation that > >> this would essentially constitute an end run around any sort of > >> accountability for demonstrated need in the actual user of the number > >> resources. A distinction was drawn between leasing addresses that an > >> organization already has (which received somewhat more support on the > >> basis of whois accuracy and the observation that it is happening > >> anyway) and allowing leased-without-a-connectivity-contract space to > >> count as justification to acquire more space. > >> > >> In the shepherds' opinion there is more work to be done in this > >> space, particularly surrounding accommodating financing for > >> organizations that are unable to afford cash on the barrelhead for > >> number resources. We enthusiastically solicit the community for new > >> proposals that might address these issues." > >> > >> The petition deadline for this Draft Policy is 8 January 2020 (in > >> five calendar days). > >> > >> For more information on starting and participating in petitions, see: > >> > >> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/#part-three-pdp-petition- > >> process > >> > >> Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available at: > >> > >> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/ > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Sean Hopkins > >> Policy Analyst > >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > >> > >> > >> > >> Forwarded Message > >> Subject: Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2019 > >> Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 09:35:20 -0500 > >> From: ARIN > >> To: arin-ppml@arin.net > >> > >> The AC has abandoned the following Draft Policy: > >> > >> * ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks > >> > >> Regarding ARIN-2019-18, the AC statement is forthcoming. > >> > >> Anyone dissatisfied with these decisions may initiate a petition. The > >> deadline to begin a petition will be five business days after the > >> AC's draft meeting minutes are published. > >> ___ > >> ARIN-PPML > >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > >> Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). > >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > >> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. > > ___ > > ARIN-PPML > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > > Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > ___ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2019
You are forgetting that anybody can do this in RIPE today. And yesterday. And still the world spins. Happy New Year to the list! Regards, Mike -Original Message- From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of hostmas...@uneedus.com Sent: Friday, January 03, 2020 4:59 PM To: Fernando Frediani Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2019 There are those that wanted to become landlords of IPv4. I think this kinda shoots down those hopes. Albert On Fri, 3 Jan 2020, Fernando Frediani wrote: > What a great thing to read about ARIN-2019-18 and a good message to > 'lessors-to-be' or 'number resource landlords'. Well done AC. > > On 03/01/2020 18:42, ARIN wrote: >> The minutes from the ARIN Advisory Council's 19 December 2019 meeting >> have been published: >> >> https://www.arin.net/about/welcome/ac/meetings/2019_1219/ >> >> Regarding Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18, the AC has released the >> following >> statement: >> >> "At its monthly meeting on December 19 2019, the ARIN AC voted >> unanimously to abandon ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected >> Networks. >> >> At the public policy meeting at ARIN 44 and on PPML, there was near >> universal opposition to expanding demonstrated need to encompass >> acquiring more space for the purposes of leasing it decoupled from >> any requirement for the lessor to be providing connectivity services. >> Reasons for opposition included that this would facilitate creating a >> class of "number resource landlords" as well as the observation that >> this would essentially constitute an end run around any sort of >> accountability for demonstrated need in the actual user of the number >> resources. A distinction was drawn between leasing addresses that an >> organization already has (which received somewhat more support on the >> basis of whois accuracy and the observation that it is happening >> anyway) and allowing leased-without-a-connectivity-contract space to >> count as justification to acquire more space. >> >> In the shepherds' opinion there is more work to be done in this >> space, particularly surrounding accommodating financing for >> organizations that are unable to afford cash on the barrelhead for >> number resources. We enthusiastically solicit the community for new >> proposals that might address these issues." >> >> The petition deadline for this Draft Policy is 8 January 2020 (in >> five calendar days). >> >> For more information on starting and participating in petitions, see: >> >> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/#part-three-pdp-petition- >> process >> >> Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available at: >> >> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/ >> >> Regards, >> >> Sean Hopkins >> Policy Analyst >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >> >> >> >> Forwarded Message >> Subject: Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2019 >> Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 09:35:20 -0500 >> From: ARIN >> To: arin-ppml@arin.net >> >> The AC has abandoned the following Draft Policy: >> >> * ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks >> >> Regarding ARIN-2019-18, the AC statement is forthcoming. >> >> Anyone dissatisfied with these decisions may initiate a petition. The >> deadline to begin a petition will be five business days after the >> AC's draft meeting minutes are published. >> ___ >> ARIN-PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN >> Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. > ___ > ARIN-PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. > ___ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2019
There are those that wanted to become landlords of IPv4. I think this kinda shoots down those hopes. Albert On Fri, 3 Jan 2020, Fernando Frediani wrote: What a great thing to read about ARIN-2019-18 and a good message to 'lessors-to-be' or 'number resource landlords'. Well done AC. On 03/01/2020 18:42, ARIN wrote: The minutes from the ARIN Advisory Council's 19 December 2019 meeting have been published: https://www.arin.net/about/welcome/ac/meetings/2019_1219/ Regarding Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18, the AC has released the following statement: "At its monthly meeting on December 19 2019, the ARIN AC voted unanimously to abandon ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks. At the public policy meeting at ARIN 44 and on PPML, there was near universal opposition to expanding demonstrated need to encompass acquiring more space for the purposes of leasing it decoupled from any requirement for the lessor to be providing connectivity services. Reasons for opposition included that this would facilitate creating a class of "number resource landlords" as well as the observation that this would essentially constitute an end run around any sort of accountability for demonstrated need in the actual user of the number resources. A distinction was drawn between leasing addresses that an organization already has (which received somewhat more support on the basis of whois accuracy and the observation that it is happening anyway) and allowing leased-without-a-connectivity-contract space to count as justification to acquire more space. In the shepherds' opinion there is more work to be done in this space, particularly surrounding accommodating financing for organizations that are unable to afford cash on the barrelhead for number resources. We enthusiastically solicit the community for new proposals that might address these issues." The petition deadline for this Draft Policy is 8 January 2020 (in five calendar days). For more information on starting and participating in petitions, see: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/#part-three-pdp-petition-process Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available at: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/ Regards, Sean Hopkins Policy Analyst American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) Forwarded Message Subject: Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2019 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 09:35:20 -0500 From: ARIN To: arin-ppml@arin.net The AC has abandoned the following Draft Policy: * ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks Regarding ARIN-2019-18, the AC statement is forthcoming. Anyone dissatisfied with these decisions may initiate a petition. The deadline to begin a petition will be five business days after the AC's draft meeting minutes are published. ___ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. ___ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. ___ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2019
What a great thing to read about ARIN-2019-18 and a good message to 'lessors-to-be' or 'number resource landlords'. Well done AC. On 03/01/2020 18:42, ARIN wrote: The minutes from the ARIN Advisory Council's 19 December 2019 meeting have been published: https://www.arin.net/about/welcome/ac/meetings/2019_1219/ Regarding Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18, the AC has released the following statement: "At its monthly meeting on December 19 2019, the ARIN AC voted unanimously to abandon ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks. At the public policy meeting at ARIN 44 and on PPML, there was near universal opposition to expanding demonstrated need to encompass acquiring more space for the purposes of leasing it decoupled from any requirement for the lessor to be providing connectivity services. Reasons for opposition included that this would facilitate creating a class of "number resource landlords" as well as the observation that this would essentially constitute an end run around any sort of accountability for demonstrated need in the actual user of the number resources. A distinction was drawn between leasing addresses that an organization already has (which received somewhat more support on the basis of whois accuracy and the observation that it is happening anyway) and allowing leased-without-a-connectivity-contract space to count as justification to acquire more space. In the shepherds' opinion there is more work to be done in this space, particularly surrounding accommodating financing for organizations that are unable to afford cash on the barrelhead for number resources. We enthusiastically solicit the community for new proposals that might address these issues." The petition deadline for this Draft Policy is 8 January 2020 (in five calendar days). For more information on starting and participating in petitions, see: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/#part-three-pdp-petition-process Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available at: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/ Regards, Sean Hopkins Policy Analyst American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) Forwarded Message Subject: Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2019 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 09:35:20 -0500 From: ARIN To: arin-ppml@arin.net The AC has abandoned the following Draft Policy: * ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks Regarding ARIN-2019-18, the AC statement is forthcoming. Anyone dissatisfied with these decisions may initiate a petition. The deadline to begin a petition will be five business days after the AC's draft meeting minutes are published. ___ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. ___ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
[arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2019
The minutes from the ARIN Advisory Council's 19 December 2019 meeting have been published: https://www.arin.net/about/welcome/ac/meetings/2019_1219/ Regarding Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18, the AC has released the following statement: "At its monthly meeting on December 19 2019, the ARIN AC voted unanimously to abandon ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks. At the public policy meeting at ARIN 44 and on PPML, there was near universal opposition to expanding demonstrated need to encompass acquiring more space for the purposes of leasing it decoupled from any requirement for the lessor to be providing connectivity services. Reasons for opposition included that this would facilitate creating a class of "number resource landlords" as well as the observation that this would essentially constitute an end run around any sort of accountability for demonstrated need in the actual user of the number resources. A distinction was drawn between leasing addresses that an organization already has (which received somewhat more support on the basis of whois accuracy and the observation that it is happening anyway) and allowing leased-without-a-connectivity-contract space to count as justification to acquire more space. In the shepherds' opinion there is more work to be done in this space, particularly surrounding accommodating financing for organizations that are unable to afford cash on the barrelhead for number resources. We enthusiastically solicit the community for new proposals that might address these issues." The petition deadline for this Draft Policy is 8 January 2020 (in five calendar days). For more information on starting and participating in petitions, see: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/#part-three-pdp-petition-process Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available at: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/ Regards, Sean Hopkins Policy Analyst American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) Forwarded Message Subject: Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2019 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 09:35:20 -0500 From: ARIN To: arin-ppml@arin.net The AC has abandoned the following Draft Policy: * ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks Regarding ARIN-2019-18, the AC statement is forthcoming. Anyone dissatisfied with these decisions may initiate a petition. The deadline to begin a petition will be five business days after the AC's draft meeting minutes are published. ___ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-21: Reserved Pool Replenishment
Let's fix the math I broke. Mea culpa. Inline. I think I got it right this time. :) On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 11:46 AM Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 4:25 PM David Farmer wrote: > >> >> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 2:08 PM Martin Hannigan >> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 09:15 Joe Provo wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 01:00:15PM -0600, David Farmer wrote: > On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 12:01 PM John Curran wrote: [snip] >>> [ clip ] > > [ clip ] I'll agree that the intended longevity of the 4.4 pool was discussed at the >> time of its creation or at least when it was expanded and it was intended >> as a relatively short-term crutch for the IXP, TLDs and other critical >> infrastructure IPv4 micro allocation growth. Personally, I wouldn't be >> opposed to right-sizing the 4.4 pool, with priority on other returned >> resources over the waiting list for replenishing this pool. >> >> Maybe right-size it down to a 5 or 6 year supply, based on the last 5 or >> 6 years of allocations, with the excess going to the waiting list >> >> > Let's assume the pool size is a /15 and use an average rate of allocation > IXP+CI of 18 /24 per year. > > YEAR 0 - YEAR 5 = 105 /24's (generous as I measured beginning of period > to end of period) > Corrected, year 0 to 5 and BOP to EOP = 105 /24's. However, apples to apples occurs when comparing /24's to /24's. :) [ clip broken math, insert good math] A /16 would probably be forgiving and return a /16. Noise. But worthy in the current context. BOP / 24 EOP /24 YR 0 *512* *494* *YR 1* *494* *477* *YR 2* *477* *459* *YR 3* *459* *442* *YR 4* *442* *424* *YR 5 <---* *424* *407 * YR 6 407 389 YR 7 389 371 YR 8 371 354 YR 9 354 336 YR 10 336 319 YR 11 319 301 YR 12 301 284 YR 13 284 266 YR 14 266 248 The 4.10 pool needs more run rate IMHO. However, a thumb in the air would suggest that it could be cut in half. Food for thought. YMMV, -M< >> ARIN staff, could we get a history of the number of IPv4 micro >> allocations for each year, by type, going back to the implementation of >> ARIN-2012-6? >> >> However, I don't recall any such discussion regarding the 4.10 pool. >> Quite the contrary it was my impression the 4.10 pool was intended to be >> around for at least an extended period of time, if not indefinitely. In >> short, it was intended to ensure the availability of small amounts of IPv4 >> needed for IPv6 deployment for a very long time. Therefore, I would be >> opposed to any kind of reduction to the 4.10 pool, other than by >> allocations as the policy intends, and if or when the pool starts to run >> low I would like to see it replenished. >> >> A little history; ARIN-2008-5 is what became NRPM Section 4.10. >> https://www.arin.net/vault/policy/proposals/2008_5.html >> >> While I think the waiting list is an important tool to ensure resources >> are not stuck at ARIN, I think continued micro allocations (4.4) and >> allocations of IPv4 needed to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment (4.10) should have >> priority for returned resources over the waiting list. >> >> Thanks. >> >> -- >> === >> David Farmer Email:far...@umn.edu >> Networking & Telecommunication Services >> Office of Information Technology >> University of Minnesota >> 2218 University Ave SEPhone: 612-626-0815 >> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 >> === >> > ___ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-21: Reserved Pool Replenishment
On 1/3/20, 12:25 PM, "ARIN-PPML on behalf of Owen DeLong" wrote: > On Dec 26, 2019, at 16:38 , Fernando Frediani wrote: > > There are two points to analyze in this proposal: > > - Any returned, reclaimed or revoked addresses that belong originally to the reserved pools to be returned to them. I think this was pretty obvious and was already done this way and wouldn't be necessary to state it again. Could the author show that this is not the way it is currently done then I am fine to support this part. Whether it is done this way or not, would be a question for the RSHD and/or John Sweeting. I honestly don’t know the current practice. (JS)>>Yes, this is the way they are handled in current policy. All special reserved pool IPv4 addresses are returned to the pool they are reserved for. However, codifying it in policy (it is not currently) is good either way as it provides clarity and ensures that it is done that way unless the community makes a deliberate change to the policy. > - With regards returning any other returned, reclaimed or revoked resources that were not from the reserved pools to them, although I see the good intent of it I find it difficult to support it as we don't know numbers related to this at the present. The numbers of assignments from these reserved pools, the amount available and the forecast for it are necessary for this analysis. The beauty of the way this proposal is structured is that it only replenishes those pools up to a historical 3-year supply. So, for example, if the last three years saw the distribution of 25, 60, and 80 /24 equivalents, then a 3-year supply would be considered to be 165 /24 equivalents. As the sliding three-year look-back window changes, so would the amount of supply required to consider the pool “full”. > Also it seems that three-year supply a long time for it to be kept. If the numbers mentioned point to the direction of the need of replenishing for these pools then the it may be necessary to review and discuss the supply time better. Without this information I cannot support this part of the proposal yet. The information is probably available in the statistics on the ARIN web site. However, I agree that having staff provide more details would be useful in informing the discussion here. I will make a formal request. (JS)>>The stats for 4.4. Year# IX # CI 201312 1 201421 0 201515 3 20167 2 201717 8 201819 0 201918 0 The stats for 4.10 201512 201662 2017139 2018230 2019260 Owen > > Regards > Fernando > > On 24/12/2019 11:41, ARIN wrote: >> >> On 19 December 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-281: Reserved Pool Replenishment" as a Draft Policy. >> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2019-21 is below and can be found at: >> >> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_21/ >> >> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are: >> >> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration >> * Technically Sound >> * Supported by the Community >> >> The PDP can be found at: >> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/ >> >> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: >> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/ >> >> Regards, >> >> Sean Hopkins >> Policy Analyst >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >> >> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2019-21: Reserved Pool Replenishment >> >> Problem Statement: >> >> While the current level of resources in the reserve pools created in Sections 4.4 and 4.10 presently seem more than adequate for their intended purposes. Nevertheless, even these well-resourced pools will eventually run out. Therefore, we should make arrangements for their replenishment, if or when necessary. >> >> Policy Statement: >> >> Add a new subsection in IPv4 General Principles, Section 4.1; >> >> 4.1.X Reserved Pool Replenishment >> >> Any resources allocated from a reserved pool created in Sections 4.4 or 4.10, or any other reserved pools created in the future, that are returned, reclaimed, or revoked will be returned to the reserved pool they were originally allocated from, regardless of the current level of each pool. Further, any other resources returned, reclaimed, or revoked will be prioritized for the replenishment of any reserved pool that falls below a running three-year supply, which is based on the previous three
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-21: Reserved Pool Replenishment
> On Dec 26, 2019, at 16:38 , Fernando Frediani wrote: > > There are two points to analyze in this proposal: > > - Any returned, reclaimed or revoked addresses that belong originally to the > reserved pools to be returned to them. I think this was pretty obvious and > was already done this way and wouldn't be necessary to state it again. Could > the author show that this is not the way it is currently done then I am fine > to support this part. Whether it is done this way or not, would be a question for the RSHD and/or John Sweeting. I honestly don’t know the current practice. However, codifying it in policy (it is not currently) is good either way as it provides clarity and ensures that it is done that way unless the community makes a deliberate change to the policy. > - With regards returning any other returned, reclaimed or revoked resources > that were not from the reserved pools to them, although I see the good intent > of it I find it difficult to support it as we don't know numbers related to > this at the present. The numbers of assignments from these reserved pools, > the amount available and the forecast for it are necessary for this analysis. The beauty of the way this proposal is structured is that it only replenishes those pools up to a historical 3-year supply. So, for example, if the last three years saw the distribution of 25, 60, and 80 /24 equivalents, then a 3-year supply would be considered to be 165 /24 equivalents. As the sliding three-year look-back window changes, so would the amount of supply required to consider the pool “full”. > Also it seems that three-year supply a long time for it to be kept. If the > numbers mentioned point to the direction of the need of replenishing for > these pools then the it may be necessary to review and discuss the supply > time better. Without this information I cannot support this part of the > proposal yet. The information is probably available in the statistics on the ARIN web site. However, I agree that having staff provide more details would be useful in informing the discussion here. I will make a formal request. Owen > > Regards > Fernando > > On 24/12/2019 11:41, ARIN wrote: >> >> On 19 December 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-281: >> Reserved Pool Replenishment" as a Draft Policy. >> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2019-21 is below and can be found at: >> >> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_21/ >> >> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will >> evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this draft >> policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated >> in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are: >> >> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration >> * Technically Sound >> * Supported by the Community >> >> The PDP can be found at: >> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/ >> >> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: >> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/ >> >> Regards, >> >> Sean Hopkins >> Policy Analyst >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >> >> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2019-21: Reserved Pool Replenishment >> >> Problem Statement: >> >> While the current level of resources in the reserve pools created in >> Sections 4.4 and 4.10 presently seem more than adequate for their intended >> purposes. Nevertheless, even these well-resourced pools will eventually run >> out. Therefore, we should make arrangements for their replenishment, if or >> when necessary. >> >> Policy Statement: >> >> Add a new subsection in IPv4 General Principles, Section 4.1; >> >> 4.1.X Reserved Pool Replenishment >> >> Any resources allocated from a reserved pool created in Sections 4.4 or >> 4.10, or any other reserved pools created in the future, that are returned, >> reclaimed, or revoked will be returned to the reserved pool they were >> originally allocated from, regardless of the current level of each pool. >> Further, any other resources returned, reclaimed, or revoked will be >> prioritized for the replenishment of any reserved pool that falls below a >> running three-year supply, which is based on the previous three years of >> allocations from each pool. >> >> Timetable for Implementation: Immediate >> >> Anything Else: >> >> ARIN Staff should regularly report on the levels and projected run-times for >> each reserved pool and immediately report when any reserved pool falls below >> a three-year running supply. >> >> A three-year running supply was chosen to provide the ARIN Policy Community >> adequate time to react through policy, as deemed appropriate at that time, >> to an imminent run out event for one of the reserved pools. >> ___ >> ARIN-PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-21: Reserved Pool Replenishment
On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 4:25 PM David Farmer wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 2:08 PM Martin Hannigan > wrote: > >> >> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 09:15 Joe Provo wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 01:00:15PM -0600, David Farmer wrote: >>> > On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 12:01 PM John Curran wrote: >>> [snip] >>> >> [ clip ] > The initial infra policies weren’t intended to be permanent. They were >> intended to be a crutch for growth occurring at a higher rate at that time. >> IXP and TLD growth in the US has slowed compared to when the policy was >> enacted. Everyone that needed benefit should have already gotten it. >> >> It would seem to make sense to clean up these pools all considered. >> > > I'll agree that the intended longevity of the 4.4 pool was discussed at > the time of its creation or at least when it was expanded and it was > intended as a relatively short-term crutch for the IXP, TLDs and other > critical infrastructure IPv4 micro allocation growth. Personally, I > wouldn't be opposed to right-sizing the 4.4 pool, with priority on other > returned resources over the waiting list for replenishing this pool. > > Maybe right-size it down to a 5 or 6 year supply, based on the last 5 or 6 > years of allocations, with the excess going to the waiting list > > Let's assume the pool size is a /15 and use an average rate of allocation IXP+CI of 18 /24 per year. YEAR 0 - YEAR 5 = 105 /24's (generous as I measured beginning of period to end of period) * BOP EOP* YR 0 131,072 131,054 YR 1 131,054 131,037 YR 2 131,037 131,019 YR 3 131,019 131,002 YR 4 131,002 130,984 YR 5 130,984 130,967 YR 6 130,967 130,949 YR 7 130,949 130,931 YR 8 130,931 130,914 YR 9 130,914 130,896 YR 10 130,896 130,879 YR 11 130,879 130,861 YR 12 130,861 130,844 YR 13 130,844 130,826 YR 14 130,826 130,808 If we were going to bracket at five years we'd need a total of 88 /24's. Which doesn't include returns. Although there probably aren't any. See distraction below. IIRC correctly the motivation on the CI pool was a pending flood of new gTLD's. It was the period where the root was busted wide open for the wild west of TLD's e,g. ".cakeisgood". Which happened on paper (and cash) but didn't materialize numbers wise. It was a good insurance policy. Which seems less needed now. Same for IXPs. // unrelated distraction // Micro allocation for 206.51.35.0 Discovered open port 1723/tcp on 206.51.35.6 Discovered open port 1723/tcp on 206.51.35.25 Discovered open port 1723/tcp on 206.51.35.33 Discovered open port 1723/tcp on 206.51.35.7 Hm. Something is not right there. What could it be? https://pastebin.com/c0QYF5QZ Cheers, -M< A little history; ARIN-2012-6 made an initial reservation of a /16 and > ARIN-2014-21 increased the reservation to a /15. > https://www.arin.net/vault/policy/proposals/2012_6.html > https://www.arin.net/vault/policy/proposals/2014_21.html > > ARIN staff, could we get a history of the number of IPv4 micro allocations > for each year, by type, going back to the implementation of ARIN-2012-6? > > However, I don't recall any such discussion regarding the 4.10 pool. Quite > the contrary it was my impression the 4.10 pool was intended to be around > for at least an extended period of time, if not indefinitely. In short, it > was intended to ensure the availability of small amounts of IPv4 needed for > IPv6 deployment for a very long time. Therefore, I would be opposed to any > kind of reduction to the 4.10 pool, other than by allocations as the policy > intends, and if or when the pool starts to run low I would like to see it > replenished. > > A little history; ARIN-2008-5 is what became NRPM Section 4.10. > https://www.arin.net/vault/policy/proposals/2008_5.html > > While I think the waiting list is an important tool to ensure resources > are not stuck at ARIN, I think continued micro allocations (4.4) and > allocations of IPv4 needed to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment (4.10) should have > priority for returned resources over the waiting list. > > Thanks. > > -- > === > David Farmer Email:far...@umn.edu > Networking & Telecommunication Services > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SEPhone: 612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 > === > ___ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
