from:"Fernando Frediani"


On 22/04/2024 20:35, Chris Malayter wrote:

I certainly didn’t get that vibe from Owen.

However, Fernando, your recommendation is a policy change.  I would be 
against that at this point.


I firmly believe that IX’s should be able to use a /24 for services 
and additional 4.4 space for their IX LAN.

Hi Chris. In which of my previous messages Am I saying otherwise ?
Regards



There is zero in the current iteration of the policy to prohibit this.

-Chris


On Apr 22, 2024, at 6:49 PM, Fernando Frediani  
wrote:


Of course Owen, on every email I read from you I get the impression 
that if it was up to you there would be no need for RIRs and policies 
to exist or maybe to be conservative in this impression you seem to 
like of the RIRs as a simple bookeeper with no power to enforce 
anything, even what the community who develops the policies set as 
reasonable.


It is of course up to the RIR, has always been and hopefully will 
continue to be, to dictate certain things which some private ones 
keeps refusing to comply because take out their freedom to do what 
they like with something doesn't belong to them. Simply if something 
is not in line with a policy set by this forum it is up to the RIR to 
dictate something that may not be desired by someone. I know that it 
may not be good for certain kind of business but life is not fair in 
many ways. So, just save up from recurring to this old useless mantra.


It doesn't matter if an IXP have abused or not. What I am putting is 
there should be well defined rules on how resources can be used and 
not allow this continuous "rule-less party desire" go just because it 
may hit someone's desire to take advantage of the system.

Fernando

On 22/04/2024 16:57, Owen DeLong wrote:
I’m not the one who is mixed up here. I know exactly what the policy 
intent was, I was very involved in creating the policy.


IXPs are meant to provide value to the peers which gather at the IXP 
by facilitating the efficient delivery of traffic amongst 
participants in the IXP. One way to do that is direct peering 
relationships through the IXP fabric. However, that is not the only 
valid mechanism for doing so. Additional services such as route 
servers, caches, etc. can also bring value to participants and it is 
not the role of the RIRs to dictate to IXPs which of those 
particular things are or are not valid use of the IXPs addressing.


My point is that I do not know of any IXPs currently abusing their 
addresses for any of the purposes you stated would occur.


I’m not supporting or proposing any change to current IXP related 
policy. I’m stating that the policy is sufficient as is.


You are the one arguing for a change. That change is not, IMHO, 
supported by the record and multiple other people have commented on 
the potential harmful effects of a change.


As such, I fail to see how you can claim I am arguing for a more 
flexible scenario. I. am arguing to preserve the status quo.


Owen


On Apr 21, 2024, at 22:45, Fernando Frediani  
wrote:


It seems you kind of disregards the basics of IP assignment and mix 
up things and what they were made for and thought for. It is not 
because something looks convenient, that is something right. When 
conveniences prevail over the main point we start to miss the 
discussion propose. What you are saying below looks more a personal 
preference if you were in charge of an IX to make it develop than 
what is the main point of the discussion how resources from a 
special pool should be treated.
IXPs are not Broadband Services Providers nor RIRs and are not 
meant to distribute IP space to anyone. IXPs need the IPs to build 
its core services in order to interconnect ASNs locally. 
Organizations connecting to an IXP have the ability to go directly 
to the RIR and get resources from there through different ways and 
that's how it should continue.


Fernando

On 22/04/2024 00:06, Owen DeLong wrote:
A small probability of abuse is generally not seen as a reason to 
deny legitimate users.


I think we can generally count on IXPs not to distribute large 
portions of their resources to cache providers that do not bring 
significant value to the users of the IX with those resources. To 
the best of my knowledge, there is no problem of abuse to date. As 
such, I think your concern here has about as much credibility as 
those crying about election fraud in the US.


Owen


On Apr 18, 2024, at 22:31, Fernando Frediani 
 wrote:


By doing this it creates a short path to some specific type of 
Internet companies over the others to have access to scarce 
resources via someone else's right (the IX) to request those 
addresses for the minimum necessary to setup an IX, not to 'give 
a hand' to third parties. It would start to distort the purpose 
of the pool.


Content providers members are members like any other connected to 
that IX. Why make them special to use these resources if other 
members (e.g: Broadband Internet Service Providers)

Re: [arin-ppml] Feedback on ARIN 53 question on micro-allocations for IXPs

Of course Owen, on every email I read from you I get the impression that 
if it was up to you there would be no need for RIRs and policies to 
exist or maybe to be conservative in this impression you seem to like of 
the RIRs as a simple bookeeper with no power to enforce anything, even 
what the community who develops the policies set as reasonable.


It is of course up to the RIR, has always been and hopefully will 
continue to be, to dictate certain things which some private ones keeps 
refusing to comply because take out their freedom to do what they like 
with something doesn't belong to them. Simply if something is not in 
line with a policy set by this forum it is up to the RIR to dictate 
something that may not be desired by someone. I know that it may not be 
good for certain kind of business but life is not fair in many ways. So, 
just save up from recurring to this old useless mantra.


It doesn't matter if an IXP have abused or not. What I am putting is 
there should be well defined rules on how resources can be used and not 
allow this continuous "rule-less party desire" go just because it may 
hit someone's desire to take advantage of the system.

Fernando

On 22/04/2024 16:57, Owen DeLong wrote:
I’m not the one who is mixed up here. I know exactly what the policy 
intent was, I was very involved in creating the policy.


IXPs are meant to provide value to the peers which gather at the IXP 
by facilitating the efficient delivery of traffic amongst participants 
in the IXP. One way to do that is direct peering relationships through 
the IXP fabric. However, that is not the only valid mechanism for 
doing so. Additional services such as route servers, caches, etc. can 
also bring value to participants and it is not the role of the RIRs to 
dictate to IXPs which of those particular things are or are not valid 
use of the IXPs addressing.


My point is that I do not know of any IXPs currently abusing their 
addresses for any of the purposes you stated would occur.


I’m not supporting or proposing any change to current IXP related 
policy. I’m stating that the policy is sufficient as is.


You are the one arguing for a change. That change is not, IMHO, 
supported by the record and multiple other people have commented on 
the potential harmful effects of a change.


As such, I fail to see how you can claim I am arguing for a more 
flexible scenario. I. am arguing to preserve the status quo.


Owen


On Apr 21, 2024, at 22:45, Fernando Frediani  
wrote:


It seems you kind of disregards the basics of IP assignment and mix 
up things and what they were made for and thought for. It is not 
because something looks convenient, that is something right. When 
conveniences prevail over the main point we start to miss the 
discussion propose. What you are saying below looks more a personal 
preference if you were in charge of an IX to make it develop than 
what is the main point of the discussion how resources from a special 
pool should be treated.
IXPs are not Broadband Services Providers nor RIRs and are not meant 
to distribute IP space to anyone. IXPs need the IPs to build its core 
services in order to interconnect ASNs locally. Organizations 
connecting to an IXP have the ability to go directly to the RIR and 
get resources from there through different ways and that's how it 
should continue.


Fernando

On 22/04/2024 00:06, Owen DeLong wrote:
A small probability of abuse is generally not seen as a reason to 
deny legitimate users.


I think we can generally count on IXPs not to distribute large 
portions of their resources to cache providers that do not bring 
significant value to the users of the IX with those resources. To 
the best of my knowledge, there is no problem of abuse to date. As 
such, I think your concern here has about as much credibility as 
those crying about election fraud in the US.


Owen


On Apr 18, 2024, at 22:31, Fernando Frediani  
wrote:


By doing this it creates a short path to some specific type of 
Internet companies over the others to have access to scarce 
resources via someone else's right (the IX) to request those 
addresses for the minimum necessary to setup an IX, not to 'give a 
hand' to third parties. It would start to distort the purpose of 
the pool.


Content providers members are members like any other connected to 
that IX. Why make them special to use these resources if other 
members (e.g: Broadband Internet Service Providers) connected to 
that same IX cannot have the same privilege ?
They and any other IX member, regardless of their business, can get 
their own allocations with their own resources.


Fernando

On 19/04/2024 02:13, Owen DeLong wrote:
I think that if it’s a cache that is serving the IX (i.e. the IX 
member networks) over the IX peering VLAN, that’s perfectly valid.


Owen


On Apr 18, 2024, at 20:35, Fernando Frediani 
 wrote:


On 18/04/2024 21:34, Matt Peterson wrote:



If the policy needs revision /(John's comments did n

Re: [arin-ppml] Feedback on ARIN 53 question on micro-allocations for IXPs

Bill, you are completely mixing up the things I guess. I am not talking 
about 'dangers' but focusing on diversion of intent of what a special 
pool was meant for just because a convenience. Don't understand why you 
are insisting on this danger point and asking for prove something that 
is not what is being put. Please re-read last 2 messages and focus on 
the points about avoiding using special pool addresses for a propose 
that was not meant for just because for a particular scenario is 
convenient (IPv4 exhaustion).
I am not saying on any of them that something should or should not 
happen because of a 'danger' but simply that the usage for these 
addresses should stay well disciplined for its main propose - support 
the emergence of IXPs by giving them addresses to use with their 
internal infrastructure and to connect members in the LAN.


Regards

On 22/04/2024 03:35, Bill Woodcock wrote:

On Apr 22, 2024, at 08:04, Fernando Frediani  wrote:
…A convenience to divert the pool to supply addresses and support the emergence 
of IXPs with allowing them to act as RIRs and supply addresses to third parties.

I agree that that is a hypothetical danger.  There are lots of hypothetical 
dangers.  You’re proposing that we all collectively foot a cost to prevent a 
hypothetical danger.  Some hypothetical dangers are so potentially calamitous 
or so likely to be realized that expenditure of resources, time, or money to 
prevent them is well-warranted.

You have not demonstrated that this is imminent, likely, or calamitous.

If you wish to take a try at doing so, I’m sure we’d all be willing to consider 
any argument you might put forward.

But you have not yet put forward any such argument.  “Because someone could” is 
not an argument.

 -Bill
___
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] Feedback on ARIN 53 question on micro-allocations for IXPs

That´s not the point Bill. As per my last message, this wish or intent 
he talks about looks more a convenience to get this into a more flexible 
scenario and divert the propose of the pool to supply addresses and 
support the emergence of IXPs with allowing them to act as RIRs and 
supply addresses to third parties which have the ability to get them 
direcetlly from the RIR. If the problem is that there is no IP space 
left for them to do directly with the RIR this other way cannot be an 
easier way to turning this pool into something that has never thought 
for and divert its propose.


Addresses from this pool have always been meant to be used for IXP 
Infrastructure and for connecting members in the LAN.


Fernando

On 22/04/2024 02:56, Bill Woodcock wrote:
Fernando: Owen is correct, the type of abuse you’re hypothesizing has 
not, in fact, occurred, in 32 years of IXPs.


Since you’re the one proposing to impose a cost on everyone else, the 
burden falls on you to prove that is solves an actual problem, not on 
Owen to prove that it does not.

                -Bill


On Apr 22, 2024, at 7:44 AM, Fernando Frediani  
wrote:




It seems you kind of disregards the basics of IP assignment and mix 
up things and what they were made for and thought for. It is not 
because something looks convenient, that is something right. When 
conveniences prevail over the main point we start to miss the 
discussion propose. What you are saying below looks more a personal 
preference if you were in charge of an IX to make it develop than 
what is the main point of the discussion how resources from a special 
pool should be treated.
IXPs are not Broadband Services Providers nor RIRs and are not meant 
to distribute IP space to anyone. IXPs need the IPs to build its core 
services in order to interconnect ASNs locally. Organizations 
connecting to an IXP have the ability to go directly to the RIR and 
get resources from there through different ways and that's how it 
should continue.


Fernando

On 22/04/2024 00:06, Owen DeLong wrote:
A small probability of abuse is generally not seen as a reason to 
deny legitimate users.


I think we can generally count on IXPs not to distribute large 
portions of their resources to cache providers that do not bring 
significant value to the users of the IX with those resources. To 
the best of my knowledge, there is no problem of abuse to date. As 
such, I think your concern here has about as much credibility as 
those crying about election fraud in the US.


Owen


On Apr 18, 2024, at 22:31, Fernando Frediani  
wrote:


By doing this it creates a short path to some specific type of 
Internet companies over the others to have access to scarce 
resources via someone else's right (the IX) to request those 
addresses for the minimum necessary to setup an IX, not to 'give a 
hand' to third parties. It would start to distort the purpose of 
the pool.


Content providers members are members like any other connected to 
that IX. Why make them special to use these resources if other 
members (e.g: Broadband Internet Service Providers) connected to 
that same IX cannot have the same privilege ?
They and any other IX member, regardless of their business, can get 
their own allocations with their own resources.


Fernando

On 19/04/2024 02:13, Owen DeLong wrote:
I think that if it’s a cache that is serving the IX (i.e. the IX 
member networks) over the IX peering VLAN, that’s perfectly valid.


Owen


On Apr 18, 2024, at 20:35, Fernando Frediani 
 wrote:


On 18/04/2024 21:34, Matt Peterson wrote:



If the policy needs revision /(John's comments did not provide 
enough of a background story - it's unclear if this a yet 
another IPv4 land grab approach, and/or IXP's evolving into 
hosting content caches, and/or the historical industry 
acceptable usage that Ryan shares), /maybe consider 
micro-allocations for IXP usage as unannounced prefixes and for 
routed prefixes, an IXP applies under NRPM 4.3 /(end user 
assignments).

/


I have a similar conversation recently with someone willing to 
use IXP allocations to assign to content caches and on this point 
I think that IXP pool should not be for that. Even knowing the 
positive impact a hosted content directly connected to a IXP 
makes it is their business to being their own IP address not the 
IXP and to be fair if you think of any CDN service they all have 
total means to do that. Therefore IXP allocations should be used 
for IXP own usage, so internal Infrastructure and to connect 
members and things should not be mixed up.


Regards
Fernando



--Matt

___
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 contacti...@arin.net  if you experience any issues.

___
ARIN

Re: [arin-ppml] Feedback on ARIN 53 question on micro-allocations for IXPs

2024-04-21 Thread Fernando Frediani

It seems you kind of disregards the basics of IP assignment and mix up 
things and what they were made for and thought for. It is not because 
something looks convenient, that is something right. When conveniences 
prevail over the main point we start to miss the discussion propose. 
What you are saying below looks more a personal preference if you were 
in charge of an IX to make it develop than what is the main point of the 
discussion how resources from a special pool should be treated.
IXPs are not Broadband Services Providers nor RIRs and are not meant to 
distribute IP space to anyone. IXPs need the IPs to build its core 
services in order to interconnect ASNs locally. Organizations connecting 
to an IXP have the ability to go directly to the RIR and get resources 
from there through different ways and that's how it should continue.


Fernando

On 22/04/2024 00:06, Owen DeLong wrote:
A small probability of abuse is generally not seen as a reason to deny 
legitimate users.


I think we can generally count on IXPs not to distribute large 
portions of their resources to cache providers that do not bring 
significant value to the users of the IX with those resources. To the 
best of my knowledge, there is no problem of abuse to date. As such, I 
think your concern here has about as much credibility as those crying 
about election fraud in the US.


Owen


On Apr 18, 2024, at 22:31, Fernando Frediani  
wrote:


By doing this it creates a short path to some specific type of 
Internet companies over the others to have access to scarce resources 
via someone else's right (the IX) to request those addresses for the 
minimum necessary to setup an IX, not to 'give a hand' to third 
parties. It would start to distort the purpose of the pool.


Content providers members are members like any other connected to 
that IX. Why make them special to use these resources if other 
members (e.g: Broadband Internet Service Providers) connected to that 
same IX cannot have the same privilege ?
They and any other IX member, regardless of their business, can get 
their own allocations with their own resources.


Fernando

On 19/04/2024 02:13, Owen DeLong wrote:
I think that if it’s a cache that is serving the IX (i.e. the IX 
member networks) over the IX peering VLAN, that’s perfectly valid.


Owen


On Apr 18, 2024, at 20:35, Fernando Frediani  
wrote:


On 18/04/2024 21:34, Matt Peterson wrote:



If the policy needs revision /(John's comments did not provide 
enough of a background story - it's unclear if this a yet another 
IPv4 land grab approach, and/or IXP's evolving into hosting 
content caches, and/or the historical industry acceptable usage 
that Ryan shares), /maybe consider micro-allocations for IXP usage 
as unannounced prefixes and for routed prefixes, an IXP applies 
under NRPM 4.3 /(end user assignments).

/


I have a similar conversation recently with someone willing to use 
IXP allocations to assign to content caches and on this point I 
think that IXP pool should not be for that. Even knowing the 
positive impact a hosted content directly connected to a IXP makes 
it is their business to being their own IP address not the IXP and 
to be fair if you think of any CDN service they all have total 
means to do that. Therefore IXP allocations should be used for IXP 
own usage, so internal Infrastructure and to connect members and 
things should not be mixed up.


Regards
Fernando



--Matt

___
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 contacti...@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.
___
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] Feedback on ARIN 53 question on micro-allocations for IXPs

2024-04-19 Thread Fernando Frediani

On Fri, 19 Apr 2024, 11:54 Job Snijders via ARIN-PPML, 
wrote:

> 
> I think there shouldn't be a hard rule about the space being publicly
> routable or not, it is up to the individual IXP operators to decide what
> technical approach is best for their stakeholder community.
>

Sure, but it is still important to have it well defined what a receiver of
such allocation type can do. For example not to be able to do
sub-assignments to thrid parties whoever they are and only be used for own
IXP infrastructure needs and connecting members in LAN.

Fernando



> Kind regards,
>
> Job
> ___
> 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] Feedback on ARIN 53 question on micro-allocations for IXPs

2024-04-18 Thread Fernando Frediani

By doing this it creates a short path to some specific type of Internet 
companies over the others to have access to scarce resources via someone 
else's right (the IX) to request those addresses for the minimum 
necessary to setup an IX, not to 'give a hand' to third parties. It 
would start to distort the purpose of the pool.


Content providers members are members like any other connected to that 
IX. Why make them special to use these resources if other members (e.g: 
Broadband Internet Service Providers) connected to that same IX cannot 
have the same privilege ?
They and any other IX member, regardless of their business, can get 
their own allocations with their own resources.


Fernando

On 19/04/2024 02:13, Owen DeLong wrote:
I think that if it’s a cache that is serving the IX (i.e. the IX 
member networks) over the IX peering VLAN, that’s perfectly valid.


Owen


On Apr 18, 2024, at 20:35, Fernando Frediani  
wrote:


On 18/04/2024 21:34, Matt Peterson wrote:



If the policy needs revision /(John's comments did not provide 
enough of a background story - it's unclear if this a yet another 
IPv4 land grab approach, and/or IXP's evolving into hosting content 
caches, and/or the historical industry acceptable usage that Ryan 
shares), /maybe consider micro-allocations for IXP usage as 
unannounced prefixes and for routed prefixes, an IXP applies under 
NRPM 4.3 /(end user assignments).

/


I have a similar conversation recently with someone willing to use 
IXP allocations to assign to content caches and on this point I think 
that IXP pool should not be for that. Even knowing the positive 
impact a hosted content directly connected to a IXP makes it is their 
business to being their own IP address not the IXP and to be fair if 
you think of any CDN service they all have total means to do that. 
Therefore IXP allocations should be used for IXP own usage, so 
internal Infrastructure and to connect members and things should not 
be mixed up.


Regards
Fernando



--Matt

___
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 contacti...@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] Feedback on ARIN 53 question on micro-allocations for IXPs

2024-04-18 Thread Fernando Frediani


On 18/04/2024 21:34, Matt Peterson wrote:



If the policy needs revision /(John's comments did not provide enough 
of a background story - it's unclear if this a yet another IPv4 land 
grab approach, and/or IXP's evolving into hosting content caches, 
and/or the historical industry acceptable usage that Ryan shares), 
/maybe consider micro-allocations for IXP usage as unannounced 
prefixes and for routed prefixes, an IXP applies under NRPM 4.3 /(end 
user assignments).

/


I have a similar conversation recently with someone willing to use IXP 
allocations to assign to content caches and on this point I think that 
IXP pool should not be for that. Even knowing the positive impact a 
hosted content directly connected to a IXP makes it is their business to 
being their own IP address not the IXP and to be fair if you think of 
any CDN service they all have total means to do that. Therefore IXP 
allocations should be used for IXP own usage, so internal Infrastructure 
and to connect members and things should not be mixed up.


Regards
Fernando



--Matt

___
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 contacti...@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] Feedback on ARIN 53 question on micro-allocations for IXPs

2024-04-18 Thread Fernando Frediani


On 18/04/2024 19:44, Ryan Woolley wrote:
At ARIN 53, John Sweeting asked for clarification from the community 
on whether an internet exchange needs IP space beyond that used for 
the switching fabric, and whether IP allocations made to an IXP 
operator may need to be routable. Additionally, John shared a 
suggestion that the historical basis for maintaining a pool specific 
to IXPs was to enable the building of filters to prevent those 
addresses from being globally routable.
I don't see a problem they being routable as there may be infrastructure 
like Portal, Looking Glass, internal Infrastructure etc e and other 
tools that need it. In the other hand it is expected that most of the 
allocation to be used for connecting members. Issue here is where 
micro-allocations would be enough for the second case, they are not for 
the first. Another point of attention is what would the risk of abuse 
and how feasible to monitor it in order to prevent abuse if necessary.
It doesn't make total sense to me to say that a pool specific to IXPs is 
intended only to build filters to prevent those addresses from being 
globally routable as there are legitimate cases. Maybe this was 
someone's opinion on the past and not a community understanding that 
ended up being expected as such.


Community IX operates two IXPs, FL-IX in south Florida and CIX-ATL in 
Atlanta.  FL-IX was founded in 2015 and now connects 158 member 
networks.  CIX-ATL began operations in 2019 and currently connects 66 
member networks.


Both IXPs have been assigned IP address space from ARIN.  Each IXP 
uses one prefix for the member LAN, which is not announced outside of 
our members’ networks, and a second, routed, prefix for the IXP 
infrastructure.
Fair enough, as mentioned above. If the allocation is for allowing to 
build a IX which plays a fairly important role in this ecosystem that 
should be for whatever is needed and justifiable, and of course there 
are means to monitor and make sure one that receives such allocation 
doesn't use it otherwise.


The routed prefix supports operations critical to the operation of the 
exchange.  Our member portal, network management systems, and 
equipment loopback addresses are, by need and design, addressed in 
routable IP space.  For example, route servers build filters based on 
ROAs and IRR databases, and configurations are replicated off-site.


Unlike an IXP affiliated with an ISP or data center operator, we have 
no line of business which would enable us to borrow IP space from, for 
example, a pool maintained for allocation to IP transit customers.  
Our transit is provided as a donation by members, who may come or go 
as their connectivity needs require, so we cannot reasonably use 
non-provider-independent IP space.
Even an ISP that sponsors an private for profit ISP if necessary should 
request allocation from this pool as the existence of an IXP, is still 
relevant to the Internet ecosystem, but your case is a prefect example 
of the usage of this


On the second question of whether space reserved for IXP allocations 
should be unroutable as a feature, we have not, in our years of 
operation, encountered any issues with reachability for these 
allocations.  If networks are building filters for this purpose, our 
experience suggests that is not a common practice.


IXPs do commonly have a desire to prevent their member LAN prefix from 
being routable.  The current best practice is that this prefix is 
signed in RPKI with an origin ASN of zero (as described in RFC 6483), 
and Community IX does this for both our IXPs’ member LANs.  To the 
extent that filtering based on IP addressing may have been 
contemplated in the past, is it now obsoleted by RPKI.


Perfect. Well done.

Fernando



Regards,

Ryan Woolley
Community IX

___
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 contacti...@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] Advisory Council Meeting Results - November 2023

2023-12-21 Thread Fernando Frediani

Right, I think I missed the justifications for these oppositions and 
only read that someone else somewhere else were opposed as a reason of 
why it should be opposed.

On 20/12/2023 05:37, Owen DeLong wrote:

I don’t know if anyone has asked.

I do know that at the ARIN meeting in San Diego they were relatively vocally 
opposed.

I know they have also opposed this on virtually every policy mailing list in 
every RIR where this has been proposed.

Modulo a few IPv4 fan boys who are bad at math, IMHO, it has very little 
support and much opposition. However, I’m no longer on the AC, so my opinion 
here is worth the cost of the postage for this email.

Owen

On Dec 19, 2023, at 10:45, Fernando Frediani  wrote:

Hello there Matthew

That's actually a very good point and question. In general I would say Exchange 
point operators, even commercial ones who still play an important role on 
Internet ecosystem development. In the other hand public Internet Exchange 
Points with more transparent policy of who can apply should be best regarded 
above the previous one.
I guess the main point to look at who predictable would be this reserve if both 
type of entities would request, what is the cost for the RIR to to supervise 
its usage and all the stuff involved.
If there are concerns about how much this type of assignments can be made of 
course I would say to restrict to public Internet Exchange Points with more 
open and transparent policies or with no commercial interest.

Fernando

On 18/12/2023 17:03, Matthew Wilder wrote:

Fernando,

Indeed I think there is a great deal of public support for IXPs to be able to 
continue to be an important part of the landscape. We as shepherds of 
ARIN-2023-2 are considering all of the feedback we are seeing on PPML.

I just wish to clarify, by IXP do you mean a public Internet Exchange Point which is more 
or less transparent about its list of peers and how new peers can apply to connect 
regardless of other direct business relationships? Or do you mean the "Exchange 
point operators" - a term which is not defined in NRPM - which can currently qualify 
for a /24 prefix with only 3 peering participants (which may or may not be in business 
together) and without necessarily any degree of transparency?

Thanks,
Matthew Wilder

On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 11:29 AM Fernando Frediani  wrote:

I think it is forcing too much for so little. Just give the IPv4 IXPs
need to operate and make people`s life easier. IXPs are a very
important
part of Internet ecosystem that changes a lot of things for better in
terms of redundancy, robustness and performance. Yes IPv4 NLRI
over IPv6
may work but people don't seem to be willing to use it very much
and for
such usage for small chunks it makes it worth.
Just make in a way that is possible and easy for the RIR to know
if one
if misusing it for other proposes and be able to action.

I also don't like the idea of shrinking IPv4 delegations form RIRs
below
/24, but if that is the feasible option than better than nothing.

Fernando

On 25/11/2023 22:33, owen--- via ARIN-PPML wrote:
> The problem I have with this line of thinking is that in
reality, IXPs
> are the place with the least need for an IPv4 prefix.
>
> It’s dirt simple to pass along IPv4 NLRI over an IPv6 peering
session
> these days, even if you’re not doing IPv6 anywhere else in your
network.
>
> The only real consequence of this is to make IPv4 trace routes
look a
> little funky on the hop that traverses the exchange.
>
> Yes, there’s a perceptual hurdle to this and there are those
that view
> an IPv6 only IXP as undesirable compared to a dual-stack one,
but at
> some point, we’re going to just have to get over that.
>
> I don’t support shrinking IPv4 delegations from RIRs below /24 and
> multiple IXPs have argued against doing so.
>
> The only possible gain to this policy is prolonging the
perceived life
> of IPv4 which, IMHO, is a step away from good. (Note, it won’t
prolong
> the actual life of IPv4, just increase the amount of pain involved
> while it lasts).
>
> Owen
>
>
>> On Nov 25, 2023, at 16:55, Martin Hannigan
wrote:
>>
>>
>> Went back to work on language that may have an impact. We seem to
>> have dropped three paragraphs from drafts that are in the current
>> policy. I can't tell if it's intentional but I'll assume it was.
>> Doesn't appear clearly marked for deletion unless I missed it. The
>> original or the June edit was also not a mirror of the RIPE
proposal.
>> ARIN can decide if anything needs to be fixed documentation
wise or
>> if we could use the help of a red line for the below. D

Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - November 2023

2023-12-19 Thread Fernando Frediani

On 18/12/2023 17:34, Owen DeLong wrote:

ike the idea of shrinking IPv4 delegations form RIRs below /24, but if
that is the feasible option than better than nothing.

My point is don’t shrink it, let it roll at /24 until it runs out. Once it
does, IXPs are the least disadvantaged by this fact of virtually any network
users because (in theory) an IXP language is used only to exchange routing
information and forward traffic. Since BGP fully supports deliverability of
IPv4 NLRI over IPv6 peering sessions and IPv4 packets can be subsequently
delivered without requiring IPv4 on the router interfaces on the IXP, despite
traditional mindset, there’s no technical or engineering reason why an IXP
actually needs IPv4 to facilitate IPv4 traffic exchange.

So instead of shrinking prefixes now and extending the life of the pool with no
predictable benefit to the community, I favor continuing to allocate /24s to
IXPs until they run out and then encouraging future IXPs to either engage the
transfer market or deliver IPv4 NLRI over IPv6.
I personally don't like this way of thinking to thrown away resources
unnecessary if there is an option to conserve them. In fact I am a bit
tired of this history of "let IPv4 go and deploy IPv6". It sound very
beautiful to say but in practice we all need to re-learn to work with
the IPv4 that is left as we will depend on it easily for over a decade
(or two), therefore we must continue being responsible on how we manage
what is left in order to facilitate the continuous work towards IPv6
deployment everywhere.
Isn't already enough the amount if problems arising from the IPv4
exhaustion and will only worse with time ?

I am definitely not of the opinion that continuing to apply best
conservation practices to whatever IPv4 is left is a bad thing and that
will impact or delay IPv6 deployment in any way. Both things can work
well together.

Fernando

Owen

Fernando

On 25/11/2023 22:33, owen--- via ARIN-PPML wrote:

The problem I have with this line of thinking is that in reality, IXPs are the
place with the least need for an IPv4 prefix.

It’s dirt simple to pass along IPv4 NLRI over an IPv6 peering session these
days, even if you’re not doing IPv6 anywhere else in your network.

The only real consequence of this is to make IPv4 trace routes look a little
funky on the hop that traverses the exchange.

Yes, there’s a perceptual hurdle to this and there are those that view an IPv6
only IXP as undesirable compared to a dual-stack one, but at some point, we’re
going to just have to get over that.

I don’t support shrinking IPv4 delegations from RIRs below /24 and multiple
IXPs have argued against doing so.

The only possible gain to this policy is prolonging the perceived life of IPv4
which, IMHO, is a step away from good. (Note, it won’t prolong the actual life
of IPv4, just increase the amount of pain involved while it lasts).

Owen

On Nov 25, 2023, at 16:55, Martin Hannigan wrote:

Went back to work on language that may have an impact. We seem to have dropped
three paragraphs from drafts that are in the current policy. I can't tell if
it's intentional but I'll assume it was. Doesn't appear clearly marked for
deletion unless I missed it. The original or the June edit was also not a
mirror of the RIPE proposal. ARIN can decide if anything needs to be fixed
documentation wise or if we could use the help of a red line for the below.
Didn't matter much anyhow.

The easiest way to extend the life of the micro allocation pool will be to
apply better justification standards. Right now, 26% of US IXPs don't meet the
minimum criteria for an initial /24 using the existing policy. Most of that
happened in the last few years and as Aaron Wendell discussed at the last
meeting.

Here's what I support

- Initial allocation of a /26 to a new IXP, and
- Include "CI" to keep it simple and consistent. No reason to single out IXPs
- A voluntary global routability requirement determined by applicant for CI
- Tightened utilization requirements for CI
- Removing the possibility of other RIR's asking ARIN for allocations (glitch?)

If the root or a TLD can't do it, what makes anyone think an IXP can?

I agree with my RIPE friends' comments regarding up front costs. It already costs $11,000
for a "free" IXP without a /24. Add a transfer /24 and it's $22,000 not
including opex, RIR fees, depreciation, etc. If it does cost a future IXP an additional
$11,000 for a /24 and it's not easily absorbed (lots of that happening today) they failed
and will not start up. Turning the knobs on network economics should go slow - as they
also acknowledged. And should als be applied to non-CI first. That seems like a faster
way to enable better transition.

On a last note. It would be nice to have a "style sheet" so we had consistency with defined terms
and language. Repeating "under this section" and other "time honored traditions" makes
policy hard to read when it

Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - November 2023

2023-12-19 Thread Fernando Frediani

Hello there Matthew

That's actually a very good point and question. In general I would say 
Exchange point operators, even commercial ones who still play an 
important role on Internet ecosystem development. In the other hand 
public Internet Exchange Points with more transparent policy of who can 
apply should be best regarded above the previous one.
I guess the main point to look at who predictable would be this reserve 
if both type of entities would request, what is the cost for the RIR to 
to supervise its usage and all the stuff involved.
If there are concerns about how much this type of assignments can be 
made of course I would say to restrict to public Internet Exchange 
Points with more open and transparent policies or with no commercial 
interest.

Fernando

On 18/12/2023 17:03, Matthew Wilder wrote:

Fernando,

Indeed I think there is a great deal of public support for IXPs to be 
able to continue to be an important part of the landscape. We as 
shepherds of ARIN-2023-2 are considering all of the feedback we are 
seeing on PPML.

I just wish to clarify, by IXP do you mean a public Internet Exchange 
Point which is more or less transparent about its list of peers and 
how new peers can apply to connect regardless of other direct business 
relationships? Or do you mean the "Exchange point operators" - a term 
which is not defined in NRPM - which can currently qualify for a /24 
prefix with only 3 peering participants (which may or may not be in 
business together) and without necessarily any degree of transparency?

Thanks,
Matthew Wilder

On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 11:29 AM Fernando Frediani 
 wrote:

I think it is forcing too much for so little. Just give the IPv4 IXPs
need to operate and make people`s life easier. IXPs are a very
important
part of Internet ecosystem that changes a lot of things for better in
terms of redundancy, robustness and performance. Yes IPv4 NLRI
over IPv6
may work but people don't seem to be willing to use it very much
and for
such usage for small chunks it makes it worth.
Just make in a way that is possible and easy for the RIR to know
if one
if misusing it for other proposes and be able to action.

I also don't like the idea of shrinking IPv4 delegations form RIRs
below
/24, but if that is the feasible option than better than nothing.

Fernando

On 25/11/2023 22:33, owen--- via ARIN-PPML wrote:
> The problem I have with this line of thinking is that in
reality, IXPs
> are the place with the least need for an IPv4 prefix.
>
> It’s dirt simple to pass along IPv4 NLRI over an IPv6 peering
session
> these days, even if you’re not doing IPv6 anywhere else in your
network.
>
> The only real consequence of this is to make IPv4 trace routes
look a
> little funky on the hop that traverses the exchange.
>
> Yes, there’s a perceptual hurdle to this and there are those
that view
> an IPv6 only IXP as undesirable compared to a dual-stack one,
but at
> some point, we’re going to just have to get over that.
>
> I don’t support shrinking IPv4 delegations from RIRs below /24 and
> multiple IXPs have argued against doing so.
>
> The only possible gain to this policy is prolonging the
perceived life
> of IPv4 which, IMHO, is a step away from good. (Note, it won’t
prolong
> the actual life of IPv4, just increase the amount of pain involved
> while it lasts).
>
> Owen
>
>
>> On Nov 25, 2023, at 16:55, Martin Hannigan 
wrote:
>>
>>
>> Went back to work on language that may have an impact. We seem to
>> have dropped three paragraphs from drafts that are in the current
>> policy. I can't tell if it's intentional but I'll assume it was.
>> Doesn't appear clearly marked for deletion unless I missed it. The
>> original or the June edit was also not a mirror of the RIPE
proposal.
>> ARIN can decide if anything needs to be fixed documentation
wise or
>> if we could use the help of a red line for the below. Didn't
matter
>> much anyhow.
>>
>> The easiest way to extend the life of the micro allocation pool
will
>> be to apply better justification standards. Right now, 26% of
US IXPs
>> don't meet the minimum criteria for an initial /24 using the
existing
>> policy. Most of that happened in the last few years and as Aaron
>> Wendell discussed at the last meeting.
>>
>> Here's what I support
>>
>> - Initial allocation of a /26 to a new IXP, and
>> - Include "CI" to keep it simple and consistent. No reason to
single
>> out IXPs
>&g

Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - November 2023

2023-12-18 Thread Fernando Frediani

I think it is forcing too much for so little. Just give the IPv4 IXPs 
need to operate and make people`s life easier. IXPs are a very important 
part of Internet ecosystem that changes a lot of things for better in 
terms of redundancy, robustness and performance. Yes IPv4 NLRI over IPv6 
may work but people don't seem to be willing to use it very much and for 
such usage for small chunks it makes it worth.
Just make in a way that is possible and easy for the RIR to know if one 
if misusing it for other proposes and be able to action.


I also don't like the idea of shrinking IPv4 delegations form RIRs below 
/24, but if that is the feasible option than better than nothing.


Fernando

On 25/11/2023 22:33, owen--- via ARIN-PPML wrote:
The problem I have with this line of thinking is that in reality, IXPs 
are the place with the least need for an IPv4 prefix.


It’s dirt simple to pass along IPv4 NLRI over an IPv6 peering session 
these days, even if you’re not doing IPv6 anywhere else in your network.


The only real consequence of this is to make IPv4 trace routes look a 
little funky on the hop that traverses the exchange.


Yes, there’s a perceptual hurdle to this and there are those that view 
an IPv6 only IXP as undesirable compared to a dual-stack one, but at 
some point, we’re going to just have to get over that.


I don’t support shrinking IPv4 delegations from RIRs below /24 and 
multiple IXPs have argued against doing so.


The only possible gain to this policy is prolonging the perceived life 
of IPv4 which, IMHO, is a step away from good. (Note, it won’t prolong 
the actual life of IPv4, just increase the amount of pain involved 
while it lasts).


Owen



On Nov 25, 2023, at 16:55, Martin Hannigan  wrote:


Went back to work on language that may have an impact. We seem to 
have dropped three paragraphs from drafts that are in the current 
policy. I can't tell if it's intentional but I'll assume it was. 
Doesn't appear clearly marked for deletion unless I missed it. The 
original or the June edit was also not a mirror of the RIPE proposal. 
ARIN can decide if anything needs to be fixed documentation wise or 
if we could use the help of a red line for the below. Didn't matter 
much anyhow.


The easiest way to extend the life of the micro allocation pool will 
be to apply better justification standards. Right now, 26% of US IXPs 
don't meet the minimum criteria for an initial /24 using the existing 
policy. Most of that happened in the last few years and as Aaron 
Wendell discussed at the last meeting.


Here's what I support

- Initial allocation of a /26 to a new IXP, and
- Include "CI" to keep it simple and consistent. No reason to single 
out IXPs
- A voluntary global routability requirement determined by applicant 
for CI

- Tightened utilization requirements for CI
- Removing the possibility of other RIR's asking ARIN for allocations 
(glitch?)


If the root or a TLD can't do it, what makes anyone think an IXP can?

I agree with my RIPE friends' comments regarding up front costs. It 
already costs $11,000 for a "free" IXP without a /24. Add a transfer 
/24 and it's $22,000 not including opex, RIR fees, depreciation, etc. 
If it does cost a future IXP an additional $11,000 for a /24 and it's 
not easily absorbed (lots of that happening today) they failed and 
will not start up. Turning the knobs on network economics should go 
slow - as they also acknowledged. And should als be applied to non-CI 
first. That seems like a faster way to enable better transition.


On a last note. It would be nice to have a "style sheet" so we had 
consistency with defined terms and language. Repeating "under this 
section" and other "time honored traditions" makes policy hard to 
read when it doesn't have to be.


4.4 Micro-allocation

ARIN will make IPv4 micro-allocations to critical infrastructure 
(“CI”) providers of the Internet, which includes Internet Exchange 
Points (“IXP”), IANA authorized root servers, top-level domain 
operators and this RIR. Requests for IPv4 allocations will be no 
smaller than a /26 or larger than a /23 for allocations which require 
global reachability. Global reachability requirements will be 
determined by the requestor. ARIN will maintain a previously reserved 
/15 of IPv4 address space for the purposes of CI allocations.


4.4.1 Additional Requirement for IXPs

An IXP requesting an initial IPv4 allocation from the blocks 
specifically reserved for this purpose will initially be assigned a 
/26 allocated from a /24 by default if they demonstrate three 
independent ASN’s are planning to interconnect on the IXP fabric 
using the requested allocation. An IXP requesting an allocation 
larger than a /24 must show their plan to utilize more than 50% of 
the requested allocation size up to a /23. Allocations larger than a 
/23 will be considered on a case-by-case basis using usual and 
customary allocation practices in effect at the time of the request.





On Tue, Nov 21, 2023

Re: [arin-ppml] Should we disallow an AC member from submitting a policy proposal?

2023-10-27 Thread Fernando Frediani


On 27/10/2023 17:24, John Curran wrote:


As an relevant side-note, I will observe that there was discussion during the 
PDP update
of requiring that _all_ policy proposals initially start solely as a problem 
statement, and
only after that problem statement had been discussed by the community would work
on actual policy proposal text commence.

That approach was deemed too restrictive, as sometime as a change to policy 
text is so
straightforward that there was no reason to deprive the community of clear 
policy change
text upfront.  I do not know know if the same is the case for your proposed 
hobbling of the
ARIN AC members, but provide it as related background.

It is indeed too restrictive and is not a good think in my view too.
I understand the good intention of it and see no problem if an author is 
wiling to seek pre community discussion about the topic for feedback, 
but that should be voluntary from the author, not imposed. But in the 
other hand this can lead to a heated discussion of merit sometimes and 
even worst, end up being an unwanted filter.


Fernando



Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers


___
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] AC Candidates

2023-10-27 Thread Fernando Frediani

This time strangely I will have to agree with Owen.

This is the forum to discuss this topic that concerns everyone here. It is
very pertinent. Thanks we are having this discussion than not having.
And as far as I saw nothing got out of the controll and everyone is being
able to put up their view and experience without limitation.

Why direct it to a less number of people or event to staff only if it
concerns very much here ?

Fernando

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023, 15:33 Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML, 
wrote:

> That sounds good in principle, Michael, but the reality is that none of
> the fora you suggested provide for an interactive discussion amongst the
> broader community.
>
> While it’s true that the general-members list reached the electorate, the
> impact of the AC is felt not only by the electorate, but also by the
> broader community.
>
> Owen
>
>
> > On Oct 27, 2023, at 11:22, Michael Abejuela  wrote:
> >
> > Hello PPML participants,
> >
> > I have observed that the PPML discussions have become increasingly
> focused on election related items.  As this is the forum for policy
> discussions, and the fact that we are in the middle of an election cycle, I
> would ask that the participants provide their election-related suggestions
> through the more appropriate avenues stated below.  There are a variety of
> considerations that are being discussed, and in order to make sure they are
> properly catalogued and taken into due consideration for future election
> cycles, we have various avenues to provide such feedback that are more
> appropriate than PPML:
> >
> > 1)The General Members Mailing list;
> > 2)Through the ARIN ACSP intake; and
> > 3)Directly to electi...@arin.net
> >
> > ARIN may also seek community input after the elections are completed for
> feedback and suggestions on future election cycles; and given that there is
> so much discussion on this topic, that will definitely be taken into
> consideration.
> >
> > Thank you for the robust discussions and participation,
> > -Michael
> > --
> > Michael R. Abejuela
> > General Counsel
> > ARIN
> > PO Box 232290
> > Centreville, VA 20120
> > (703) 227-9875 (p)
> > (703) 263-0111 (f)
> > mabeju...@arin.net 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/27/23, 2:03 PM, "ARIN-PPML on behalf of Richard Laager" <
> arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net  on behalf
> of rlaa...@wiktel.com > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On 2023-10-27 12:36, Leif Sawyer via ARIN-PPML wrote:
> >> William Herrin mailto:b...@herrin.us>> writes:
> >>>
> >>> I believe that prior interaction with each segment of the community,
> >>> outside of their duties as AC, should be a hard requirement for rating
> >>> a candidate as "qualified" during the elections process.
> >>> Quantitatively? Start with something simple: one policy-related post
> >>> to PPML while not an AC member and you have to speak at the mike at
> >>> least once at an ARIN meeting. Else you're rated "qualifications not
> >>> demonstrated."
> >>
> >> Thank you for your suggestion and clarification, and I'll take it under
> advisement.
> >
> >
> > It might not be best to go from zero to hard requirement.
> >
> >
> > In other words, _if_ this is being added as a thing that the NomCom
> > should care about, I recommend starting with this being one of the
> > factors that differentiates "Qualified" and "Well Qualified". If that
> > works out and _if_ the desire is there to make it a hard requirement,
> > that can be done a year or two later.
> >
> >
> > I'm not currently expressing a position on whether this should be a
> > factor to consider. I haven't given it enough thought.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Richard
> >
> >
> > ___
> > ARIN-PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net  ARIN-PPML@arin.net>).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml <
> 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] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

2023-10-27 Thread Fernando Frediani

I think I undertand what Bill is trying to put and for me it is much
simpler.

How one can put his/her name available for candidacy if doesn't participate
on discussions and mainly doesn't properly undertand the mechanics of how
this all works ?
I don't think it needs to be a written requirement but anyone voting should
not vote because the candidate is a good chap, a good family father or a
great technical expert or manager. It must understand how it works, what is
involved, the process, the historic, etc and without speaking publiclly how
can you evaluate and give your vote the the person ?

Once in AC in my view the person should be as quiet as possible and refrain
from giving even personal opinions about any proposals. I don't beleive in
that thing "taking my hat off". There are not 2 persons there.

But while community only it is expected someone putting his/her name for
candidacy should have been active and be able to show he/she is up for the
role.

Fernando

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023, 14:37 Leif Sawyer via ARIN-PPML, 
wrote:

> William Herrin   writes:
> >
> >I believe that prior interaction with each segment of the community,
> >outside of their duties as AC, should be a hard requirement for rating
> >a candidate as "qualified" during the elections process.
> >Quantitatively? Start with something simple: one policy-related post
> >to PPML while not an AC member and you have to speak at the mike at
> >least once at an ARIN meeting. Else you're rated "qualifications not
> >demonstrated."
>
> Thank you for your suggestion and clarification, and I'll take it under
> advisement.
>
> Leif Sawyer
> AC Chair
>
> 
> Leif Sawyer
> GCI | he/him | Engineer, Network & Systems Delivery Engineering
> t: 907-351-1535 | w: www.gci.com
> ___
> 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] AC candidates


On 26/10/2023 19:54, Martin Hannigan wrote:




Almost every member of the AC and Board works for a company that is 
either transferring (buy or sell) IPv4 addresses, on the waitlist, 
consulting on obtaining number resources or just plain "needers". Most 
have some or all their responsibilities around it. I'm not all saying 
the members or candidates don't have integrity, I'm saying that the 
conflicts are more real than some would like to believe. One only has 
to view the list of transfers between buyers or look at the waitlist 
to scope the size of a conflict. Personally, it feels like the biggest 
challenge and risk around conflicts is having more than one person on 
the entire body from a single company or its controlled entities.


Hi Martin

That has never been a problem. Everyone working in building internet 
being an ISP, a cloud provider or anything related need the IP space to 
connect people therefore for the propose they were established and have 
always been there. IP space certainly was not created to be made 
available for renting or being traded "per se" without any connectivity 
services attached for example. This doesn't build any internet in the 
region by itself.


One thing is to have someone deciding things alongside with others with 
the same propose to build internet and another would be someone taking a 
chance on a situation of scarcity that is not good to the community 
being able to make certain decisions that may subvert the main propose 
of IP addresses.




Warm regards,

-M<



___
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 contacti...@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] AC candidates


Well said.

I find very weird that people try to put IP brokerage as a normal thing 
compared to other usual services that really develop the internet with 
evolution and entrepreneurship.


When you buy a router, a server, any network equipment it is yours. You 
may do whatever you want with them, develop technology, sell services 
and charge as much as you wish.


IP space it is not yours, nor the brokers. It is a shared resource that 
has a reason that many keep forgetting does not belong to any company 
specifically and are intended to develop the internet and connect 
people. There is a reason it is regulated and should be distributed with 
fairness by a neutral entity that doesn't have financial interests in it 
with rules developed by those who are really building internet.


It is not difficult to distinguish between services that makes a good to 
the internet and really develop it and those who mostly speculate about 
a resource that doesn't even belong to any of these actors.


Fernando

On 26/10/2023 22:10, Jay Hennigan wrote:

On 10/26/23 16:35, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote:


OK, but consider:

Those allocating addresses to customers at a cloud provider — Same exact
issues.

Those allocating addresses to internal usage at a CDN — Same exact
issues.

My point is that there is nothing unique about the inherent COI here 
vs. virtually

any other class of user of ARIN services.


I disagree. Those who are in the ISP, cloud provider or CDN business 
are in the business of putting the addresses to use to benefit the 
Internet community. Number resources are something that are needed for 
them to do business.


Address brokers view number resources as a commodity to be bought, 
sold and arbitraged. They don't care about the Internet community. 
CIDR blocks could just as well be pork bellies or oil and gas futures 
as far as they are concerned. Address brokers fare better when number 
resources are scarce, as they're more valuable. The others you 
mentioned do better when the resources are plentiful.


Do we want those that personally profit by addresses being scarce in 
charge of determining ARIN policy?



___
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] AC candidates


Hi Owen
It is good that this is just your own opinion. You are entitled to it of 
course.


Of course they seek to abide by ARIN policies and pay fees otherwise 
their need don't move. They don't have any other choice. But it is not 
hard to think if they had enough power to change policies in order to 
make their business more easy and with less "blocks" caused by good 
policies developed by experienced people with major interest in the 
community needs, to exist fairness in resource allocation and that 
everyone is served reasonably and equally regardless their size and how 
much money they have do you really think they would refrain from doing 
that ? It is not because maybe a single person wasn't able to move 
forward things that are beneficial to a minority and to specific 
business because he/she didn't have enough votes or support that he/she 
or them would not do if they had. In my view is naive to think most 
would balance well community interests and an specific business interest.


Regarding the ad hominem attacks thing please just refrain from saying 
this every time someone say anything that bothers reading and contrary 
to your own thinking. I ask you to make an effort to separate a mere 
annoyance and endeavor to put arguments to defend your points and the 
discussion can continue fine.


Regards
Fernando

On 26/10/2023 15:06, Owen DeLong wrote:



On Oct 26, 2023, at 09:49, Fernando Frediani  
wrote:


The very existence of PPML is a block and problem for IP brokers to 
freely do business due to the restrictions policies developed here 
impact their ability to do whatever their wish to fit to their 
customer needs.
Last time I saw a IP broker representative speaking to an audience he 
said with no shame that it was necessary to remove necessity to 
justify for the resources in order to do a transfers. Does anyone 
really believes that such person seating on the AC would be able to 
balance community interests and his pay checker interests ?




I believe that it has already been proven that this is possible. I 
will not name the person, though anyone paying attention can probably 
identify her easily. I hope she will not be upset that I singled her 
out. Nonetheless, we have had at least one AC member who worked for an 
address broker at the beginning of her time on the AC and for a 
substantial time thereafter. IMHO she served with distinction and 
honor throughout. I am sorry to see that she is not running for 
re-election.


We didn’t always agree, but I have no doubt that she represented the 
community honestly and with distinction throughout.


In some way the greedy to freely trade with IP resources lead to a 
sad and going history of fraud and dismount of an organization like 
AfriNic and guess what ? AfriNic was just trying to impose the 
current policy developed by the community when it all started.




In fact, the situation in AFRINIC has very little to do with the greed 
of a broker and significantly more to do with failure by the registry 
to follow its own governing documents.


For example, consider that there’s a ~8 million address discrepancy 
between what AFRINIC claims is in their free pool and what should be 
remaining according to Geoff Huston’s statistics based on their 
published allocation data.


So when someone say they bring a lot of experience I kind of agree, 
but experience that they have learned in order to push their own 
business ahead despite any community interest involved, nothing else.


I don’t think that’s a valid assumption to make about everyone that 
works for every address broker and frankly, I think your statements 
border on ad hominem attacks.


Of course I am not willing throw stones on these actors and I know 
and have a good relationship with some that are serious and are 
really interested in facilitating transfers, but in general I am not 
naive to see very much good intentions towards the community 
interests from them to this and other Policy Development Forums.



You pretty much already have, so that statement is laughable.


Therefore yes, any person affiliated to IP broker should be seen as a 
high conflict of interest.


Disagreeing with the community isn’t inherently a conflict of 
interest. A conflict exists when a person is essentially beholden to 
two masters whose interests are in conflict.


While there are some scenarios where a broker might be at odds with 
ARIN, this is not inherently the case. Indeed, ARIN maintains a list 
of brokers that have agreed to abide by ARIN policies and paid fees to 
ARIN in order to be listed as transfer facilitators.


That’s not a conflict, that’s working together harmoniously, even if 
you don’t like the result.


Owen


Fernando

On 26/10/2023 13:15, William Herrin wrote:

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 8:42 AM Adam Thompson  wrote:

I don't agree that an IP broker *inherently* has a problematic
conflict of interest with ARIN, any more than every ARIN
member on the AC has some degree o

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

The very existence of PPML is a block and problem for IP brokers to 
freely do business due to the restrictions policies developed here 
impact their ability to do whatever their wish to fit to their customer 
needs.
Last time I saw a IP broker representative speaking to an audience he 
said with no shame that it was necessary to remove necessity to justify 
for the resources in order to do a transfers. Does anyone really 
believes that such person seating on the AC would be able to balance 
community interests and his pay checker interests ?


In some way the greedy to freely trade with IP resources lead to a sad 
and going history of fraud and dismount of an organization like AfriNic 
and guess what ? AfriNic was just trying to impose the current policy 
developed by the community when it all started.


So when someone say they bring a lot of experience I kind of agree, but 
experience that they have learned in order to push their own business 
ahead despite any community interest involved, nothing else.


Of course I am not willing throw stones on these actors and I know and 
have a good relationship with some that are serious and are really 
interested in facilitating transfers, but in general I am not naive to 
see very much good intentions towards the community interests from them 
to this and other Policy Development Forums.


Therefore yes, any person affiliated to IP broker should be seen as a 
high conflict of interest.


Fernando

On 26/10/2023 13:15, William Herrin wrote:

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 8:42 AM Adam Thompson  wrote:

I don't agree that an IP broker *inherently* has a problematic
conflict of interest with ARIN, any more than every ARIN
member on the AC has some degree of inherent conflict of interest.

Hi Adam,

The IP broker's core business directly overlaps with the registry's
function. -Of course- there's a substantial conflict of interest.

Many folks deeply versed in the issues relevant to ARIN will have jobs
that offer some conflict of interest. They represent their companies
before ARIN. But the broker's or "leaser's" is the most substantial of
all -- it's their *core* business.

That doesn't necessarily mean they should be rejected as candidates.
After all, they bring a wealth of relevant experience. But at an
absolute minimum, their conflict of interest statement should
demonstrate a clear understanding of their situation. Someone who
doesn't understand the character of his or her conflict of interest
has no place on the board.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


___
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] AC candidates


Hi Bill

Also check other details that may be concerning for example if any of 
them have affiliations or connections to any IP brokers or what kind of 
proposals that may put in jeopardy ARIN registered resources.

Fernando

On 26/10/2023 04:42, William Herrin wrote:

Howdy,

As I think about how to vote for the AC candidates, I figured I'd
check the list archives to see how each one went about arguing for and
against proposals over the years. Seems like a reasonable way to
evaluate a candidate judged "well qualified," right?

Imagine my surprise. Of the 14 candidates, only 5  have posted here as
a member of the general public. Ever. Even a couple of the current AC
members have only posted here in their official capacity on the AC.

I don't know what to say.I just don't know what to say.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

___
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] RPKI for Reallocations

2023-06-23 Thread Fernando Frediani


I would imagine you would defend this Owen. But I didn't misunderstand.

ROAs should be signed by organizations who receive IP space from the 
RIR. They are the ones responsible for that IP space. If you let these 
organizations re-assign to other Autonomous Systems you start to void 
the RIR function. This has nothing to do with ISPs assigning IP 
resources to their customers in order they can connect to the Internet 
as it has always been. Of course some will defend ISP to assign 
resources to another ISP which is an ASN as it doesn't need to pass 
through the RIR policies directly.
If an organization who is an Autonomous System get their IP space 
directly from the RIR then it can freely and easily sign whatever ROAs 
they should.


Fernando

On 23/06/2023 15:38, Delong.com wrote:

You fundamentally misunderstand the situation, then.

ROAs must be delegated according to the way networks are delegated. 
Lots of ISPs get addresses from upstream ISPs who get them from 
upstream ISPs who get them from ARIN.


In the case where IP addresses are delegated ARIN->ISP A->ISP B->ISP 
C, for RPKI to function, it has to be possible for ISP B to get a ROA 
from ISP A and for ISP C to

Get a ROA from ISP B.

ROAs have to be representative of the ORIGINATOR of the route in BGP 
or they are useless.


Owen


On Jun 23, 2023, at 11:24, Fernando Frediani  
wrote:


I don't think this should be allowed to happen. ROAs are to be 
created by organizations who receive the allocation from the RIR as 
ultimatelly they remain responsible for that IP space. If they have 
allocated a block to a customer they should be the ones responsible 
for creating any ROAs they need for that IP space (in fact ideally 
they should create for the whole IP space anyway).


Fernando

On 23/06/2023 13:20, Richard Laager wrote:
It is my understanding that the downstream Org cannot create RPKI 
ROAs for Reallocated IP Networks. For example, 206.9.80.0/24 is 
reallocated to me (OrgID WIKSTR-1), but I cannot make a ROA for it.


This is obviously suboptimal for adopting RPKI.

Is this something that we could fix with Policy development, or do I 
need to bark up some other tree?



___
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] RPKI for Reallocations

2023-06-23 Thread Fernando Frediani

I don't think this should be allowed to happen. ROAs are to be created 
by organizations who receive the allocation from the RIR as ultimatelly 
they remain responsible for that IP space. If they have allocated a 
block to a customer they should be the ones responsible for creating any 
ROAs they need for that IP space (in fact ideally they should create for 
the whole IP space anyway).


Fernando

On 23/06/2023 13:20, Richard Laager wrote:
It is my understanding that the downstream Org cannot create RPKI ROAs 
for Reallocated IP Networks. For example, 206.9.80.0/24 is reallocated 
to me (OrgID WIKSTR-1), but I cannot make a ROA for it.


This is obviously suboptimal for adopting RPKI.

Is this something that we could fix with Policy development, or do I 
need to bark up some other tree?
___
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] implementing RPKI prefix validation actually increases risk

2023-06-05 Thread Fernando Frediani


Hello Michael

If I am not forgotten you are someone who strongly opposed IPv6 sometime 
ago, called it a undue burden and seems to be fighting against it with 
all forces and stating clearly and you don't need it. Not surprised now 
by your email about  RPKI as well.


Fernando

On 05/06/2023 23:29, Michel Py via ARIN-PPML wrote:


Hi folks,

I am bumping into a dark side of RPKI prefix validation that actually 
increases risk to the network when deployed.


As many others here do, I use BGP blackhole feeds (RTBH). This 
technique has been around for a long time.


It is quite a common situation in some orgs to have the in-house 
SIEM/IDS redistribute blackhole prefixes via a BGP feed.


Also, there are numerous publicly available ones such as :

https://team-cymru.com/community-services/bogon-reference/bogon-reference-bgp/

https://www.spamhaus.org/bgpf/

http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/cbbc/

When configuring RPKI validation, here is what happens. 
152.89.196.0/24 is a real-world example of a prefix that has been 
blacklisted by three different RTBH feeds.


After implementing RPKI validation, it has generated some volume of 
firewall alarms for different type of attacks.


c4321-michel#sh ip bgp | beg 152.89.196.

BGP table version is 48156064, local router ID is 173.166.233.21

Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - 
internal,


Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete

RPKI validation codes: V valid, I invalid, N Not found

Network  Next Hop    Metric LocPrf Weight Path

I* 152.89.196.0/24  192.0.2.1    0 90  0 21719 I 
 <== Trusted RTBH


N* i   192.0.2.1 100  1 i 
   <== CBBC


I* 192.0.2.1    0 40  0 65190 i  <== 
Spamhaus


V*> 173.166.233.22 30  0 1299 9002 57523 i    <== 
Prefix from full feed


The problem here is that RPKI validation is at the very top of the BGP 
bestpath decision process, before weight and local-preference, without 
any way to change that.


Therefore, the “Valid” status of the RPKI route affectively renders 
the RTBH feeds useless. No matter what manipulations of other 
parameters may be configured in route-maps, the RPKI status will 
override everything else.


Unsurprisingly, Cisco says that doing something about it is impossible.

Unfortunately, the “Valid” RPKI status presents no warranties 
whatsoever that the prefix is not used for rogue activities. Same as 
HTTPS certificates, crooks and spammers have realized that a ROA was a 
necessary part of doing their dirty business.


This particular prefix is a well-known source of attacks; there are 
very valid reasons it is present in multiple BGP blackholes. 
Unfortunately, RPKI validation, combined with Cisco’s implementation, 
as provided bad actors with a tool to disable a blacklisting method 
that plenty of orgs are currently using.


I am forced to disable RPKI prefix validation. To me, RPKI prefix 
validation does not bring enough value to compensate for the loss of 
the protection that the BGP blackhole feeds provide. Implementing RPKI 
validation has actually increased the volume of attacks on my network, 
attacks that were previously blocked right at the very edge. The risk 
increase is immediate : implementing RPKI validation is what made me 
look at these new firewall alarms. On the other hand, the gain is not 
immediately perceptible.


In terms of public policy and ARIN, I think that there is a consensus 
that deploying RPKI validation is good for everyone. I am posting this 
so that the community can build an understanding of why it may not be 
deployed universally. I am not deploying it because I don’t want it or 
don’t understand it, I am not deploying it because it simply does not 
work for me. I don’t think I will be the only one in that case. It 
looked like a good idea on paper, but the impossibility to accommodate 
currently implemented security measures is a no-go.


Michel


___
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 contacti...@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] Tenfold fee increases?

2023-06-03 Thread Fernando Frediani

If there are not enough incentives already let's create more then. We, as a
community in a bottom up process as responsible for creating them based on
what is right and fair to most people.

Use the excuse that the broker market is happing is not enough to try
pretend things like leasing is a correct thing. It is not and will never
be, despite the need some may have. It is fundamentally wrong allow assign
addresses to those who can pay more rather than necessarily to those who
justify for them.

We, as a community can adjust the rules in order to create more incentives
for unused spaces to be returned to ARIN so it can reassign to those who
really justify and will use them to build real Internet, based on fair and
neutral rules not just to speculate and profit from it.
We can have all the basis to support ARIN legally to revoke unused space
that to be returned therefore if it is not in use (being leased for
example) then it must be returned.

Doesn't matter if that ended up happing here and there. If that is morally
wrong, a distrotion to the system and should not been done then any
necessary policy to support ARIN to revoke addresses where necessary and
reassign to those who really justify should be created for that.
We cannot prentend that is fine just because some a minority still beleive
it should be allowed to profit from something someone doesn't own and that
is in need for others to fulfil its main propose and build Internet.

Fernando

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023, 20:12 Matt Harris,  wrote:

> Matt Harris
> VP OF INFRASTRUCTURE
>
> *Follow us on LinkedIn!* 
> 
> *matt.har...@netfire.net* 
> *816-256-5446* <816-256-5446>
> *www.netfire.com* 
> On Fri, Jun 2, 2023 at 7:15 AM Bill Woodcock  wrote:
>
>> Removing the program, with its criteria and fees, would not stop the
>> practice.  I will be the first to admit that, when I was on the ARIN board,
>> I was completely against commercial brokerage of IP addresses, as a matter
>> of principle.  I believed that IP addresses, when no longer needed, should
>> be returned to the RIR for redistribution as needed.  Like phone numbers,
>> for instance.  Now, however, I believe that there is a reasonable market
>> niche for a few brokers, and that ARIN keeping a check on bad behavior in
>> that space is valuable.
>>
>> -Bill
>>
>
> Hey folks,
> I think we're missing a lot here. The incentives to return unused
> resources are extremely small. There is a much greater incentives to sell
> or lease the space. If selling the space outright by transferring it -
> often through a broker - were no longer an option, most organizations would
> simply sit on it or would lease it out, the latter situation is more useful
> to spammers and others who use space on a temporary and not permanent or
> semi-permanent basis, and increased competition from those who cannot sell
> the space would drive prices down for leasing: this is very good for
> spammers and other bad actors who will simply walk away from addresses when
> the lease is up and they are burned by blacklists, and very bad for
> legitimate service providers of all sorts who need space that they intend
> to be decent stewards of.
>
> I'd also love to see IPv4 deprecated and just move to a 100% v6 native
> internet. I've contributed to efforts to do that in what little ways are
> possible, like making sure my customers have IPv6 implemented properly,
> sharing information about it and about various events over the past decade
> or so, etc. But we're still not there, and in reality, we're still not
> close. IPv4 is a necessity, whether we like that fact or not.
>
> So understanding those two points, I don't see why increasing fees on
> facilitators such that it is not a big deal for the largest players, but
> pushes smaller competitors out of the market, benefits anyone really.
> Having increased competition almost always benefits a market as a general
> rule, and $10,000 can be a lot for an organization that is just getting
> started or, that performs this role as a secondary business rather than
> their primary one. So for those reasons, my feeling is that Tom's grievance
> is legitimate, and these sorts of discussions should indeed be discussions
> we have prior to changes to these fee schedules and policies being made.
>
> - mdh
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Experience Report Working Group Leasing Question


On 08/05/2023 21:54, David Farmer wrote:



In my opinion, your very technical definition of leasing is an 
anachronism. The reality is if you want/need more than a /29 of 
addresses, and you don’t already have them, you will need to pay for 
them one way or another on top of your transit bandwidth, through the 
transfer market, leasing them from your transit provider, or leasing 
them from a 3rd party, this is today’s reality, like it or not.


Getting it from the transit provider who is building Internet 
infrastructure and providing connectivity is fine, has always been. 
Getting from a 3rd party who is just speculating around IP space and not 
interested in building any Internet stuff not. It does not matter what 
reality may be happening in some places, if that is wrong it does not 
make it look right because some are doing and find that a normal thing 
because it fits to their commercial needs. Is Congress willing to change 
law to make crimes in the top of list not to be a crime anymore because 
that is happening more often?

You are only authorized to trade with what you bought and own.

Fernando



Thanks

On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 18:23 Fernando Frediani  
wrote:


Hi Willian. A customer who holds an ASN and is a ARIN member
should not get IP space to announce with their own ASN from the
ISP provider but directly with ARIN in all cases.
Legal risk will always exists and it is not because it exists it
should not be taken, just need to evaluated and worked.

There has been a proposal presented not much a while ago that
intended to get that separation better worded and which was still
in the process of getting feedback and improvements, but AC
quickly dismissed it in a questionable way despite there has been
people interested in discussing and improving it. A pity. There
has not even been a chance to get a improved text in that sense.
And honestly there will always be some way someone will find out
to try to circumvent rules and I don't think there will be a
perfect text, but a reasonable one that can cover most scenarios
can play a important role in reducing scenarios where resources
can be misused.

On 08/05/2023 19:45, William Herrin wrote:

On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 3:26 PM Fernando Frediani  
<mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>  wrote:

Another thing which many here are targeting about IP leasing
in the sense of renting, speculation made by those who don't
build or offer any Internet infrastructure and services. In other
words someone holding IP space and not using it to build any
Internet infrastructure and services.

Hi Fernando,

You may be missing my point. How do you differentiate in policy between:

Scenario 1: ISP A provides a T1 and a /24. ISP B provides a gigabit
ethernet. Customer routes with BGP on both but depreferences ISP A so
it never shows up in the Internet BGP tables.

Scenario 2: Pretextual ISP C (the defacto address leaser) provides a
/24 and a VPN (or virtual machine other nil-cost transit consuming
mechanism). ISP D provides a gigabit ethernet. Customer routes with
BGP on both but depreferences ISP C so it never shows up in the
Internet BGP tables.

Scenario 1 is considered reasonable and has been for the entire
lifetime of the RIRs.

Scenario 2 is the objectionable address leasing arrangement with a
tiny bit of fluff to bring it into technical compliance with ARIN
policy.


You can't tell ARIN to just exercise their judgement whether something
is defacto leasing. That creates legal risk to the organization where
they can't effectively act against the people they "know" to be
leasers.

You have to write a policy that outright breaks scenario #2 without
harming scenario #1.That's the utilization count approach. ISP A in
scenario #1 is not particularly bothered if ARIN gets a bee in their
bonnet about counting that /24 utilized. So they have to be at 81%
instead of 80%. Same difference.

ISP C in scenario #2, that's their entire business. If ARIN counts it
unutilized, they're out of business.

Get it?

Regards,
Bill Herrin


___
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.

--
===
David Farmer Email:far...@umn.edu <mailto:email%3afar...@umn.edu>
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414

Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Experience Report Working Group Leasing Question

Hi Willian. A customer who holds an ASN and is a ARIN member should not 
get IP space to announce with their own ASN from the ISP provider but 
directly with ARIN in all cases.
Legal risk will always exists and it is not because it exists it should 
not be taken, just need to evaluated and worked.


There has been a proposal presented not much a while ago that intended 
to get that separation better worded and which was still in the process 
of getting feedback and improvements, but AC quickly dismissed it in a 
questionable way despite there has been people interested in discussing 
and improving it. A pity. There has not even been a chance to get a 
improved text in that sense.
And honestly there will always be some way someone will find out to try 
to circumvent rules and I don't think there will be a perfect text, but 
a reasonable one that can cover most scenarios can play a important role 
in reducing scenarios where resources can be misused.


On 08/05/2023 19:45, William Herrin wrote:

On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 3:26 PM Fernando Frediani  wrote:

Another thing which many here are targeting about IP leasing
in the sense of renting, speculation made by those who don't
build or offer any Internet infrastructure and services. In other
words someone holding IP space and not using it to build any
Internet infrastructure and services.

Hi Fernando,

You may be missing my point. How do you differentiate in policy between:

Scenario 1: ISP A provides a T1 and a /24. ISP B provides a gigabit
ethernet. Customer routes with BGP on both but depreferences ISP A so
it never shows up in the Internet BGP tables.

Scenario 2: Pretextual ISP C (the defacto address leaser) provides a
/24 and a VPN (or virtual machine other nil-cost transit consuming
mechanism). ISP D provides a gigabit ethernet. Customer routes with
BGP on both but depreferences ISP C so it never shows up in the
Internet BGP tables.

Scenario 1 is considered reasonable and has been for the entire
lifetime of the RIRs.

Scenario 2 is the objectionable address leasing arrangement with a
tiny bit of fluff to bring it into technical compliance with ARIN
policy.


You can't tell ARIN to just exercise their judgement whether something
is defacto leasing. That creates legal risk to the organization where
they can't effectively act against the people they "know" to be
leasers.

You have to write a policy that outright breaks scenario #2 without
harming scenario #1.That's the utilization count approach. ISP A in
scenario #1 is not particularly bothered if ARIN gets a bee in their
bonnet about counting that /24 utilized. So they have to be at 81%
instead of 80%. Same difference.

ISP C in scenario #2, that's their entire business. If ARIN counts it
unutilized, they're out of business.

Get it?

Regards,
Bill Herrin
___
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] Policy Experience Report Working Group Leasing Question


Hello Willian

It is that very difficult to differentiate a scenario where a final 
customer receives a block allocation in order to have their Internet 
service working with that connectivity provider. That has never been a 
problem.
Another thing which many here are targeting about IP leasing in the 
sense of renting, speculation made by those who don't build or offer any 
Internet infrastructure and services. In other words someone holding IP 
space and not using it to build any Internet infrastructure and services.


Fernando

On 08/05/2023 19:16, William Herrin wrote:

On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 3:05 PM Noah  wrote:

On Mon, 8 May 2023, 22:19 William Herrin,  wrote:
We are all aware that ISPs are generally LIRs and as such,
their downstream endusers/customers often time get assigned
small blocks like /24 based on need ontop of the connectivity
services they are provided by the ISP.

Some also end up being the source of the IP addresses but only a small
source of the transit. Think: T1 and /24 from ISP A, gigabit ethernet
from ISP B. I haven't counted but there are at least hundreds of
these. I don't know how we write policy that disqualifies pretextual
leasing (like Owen was talking about) without also disqualifying these
longstanding and reasonable uses.



Historically, a few ISPs even allowed some customers to keep their IP
addresses when they left.

Very few __and those IPs were transferred to those customers__ who then became 
resource members through the RIR process.

That is not accurate.



Unused address ought to be returned back to the RIR inventory for further 
redistribution.

A quarter of a century of RIR experience suggests that mostly doesn't
happen. Hence the existence of a transfer market. Which does seem to
work.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

___
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] Policy Experience Report Working Group Leasing Question


On 08/05/2023 19:05, Noah wrote:



Good.. and the RIR system and only the RIR must handle the 
management and distribution based on need of IP resources and not a 
3rd party entity that the community does not even recognize.

Totally ! That´s a fundamental point !


IP Leasing undermines the foundation of the system that has served the 
Internet community so well.


Any endorsement of such a practise will be setting a very dangerous 
presidence if we attempt to ignore order in favour of an unregulated 
practise and greed. There has to be a limit, a demarcation, as to how 
internet number resources are managed and distributed.

Well said too.



Cheers,
Noah

___
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 contacti...@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] Policy Experience Report Working Group Leasing Question

You can only lease what you own. What people are trying to do here is 
pretend they own the resources and earn money with an asset they don't 
own despite everything that what IP addresses have always meant for.


IP leasing is an attestation that the resource holder doesn't justify 
for those resources anymore, therefore they should be revoked and 
assigned to someone else who really justifies for it. ARIN should use 
any financial and legal resources it has to invest in a efficient 
reclamation process in order to keep its missing to assign shared 
resources to those who really need them to build internet 
infrastructure, not do those who wish to speculate around IP space.


Fernando

On 08/05/2023 01:40, Ron Grant wrote:

Pitch perfect points herein:
- Transfer market already successful
- Avoids a "highly litigious reclamation process"
- Leasing is a natural evolution of the Transfer process
- Section 12 allows both for a reclamation due to misuse, and for a 
green light after 5 years.


I withdraw my initial "can o' worms" objection - when likening them to 
transfers, it looks like we already have controls in place.



On 2023-05-07 3:08 p.m., David Farmer via ARIN-PPML wrote:
In my opinion, the 60-month probation on transfers in section 4.1.8 
is intended to prevent immediate monetization through the transfer 
market of IPv4 resources obtained from the waiting list. Allowing the 
lease of IPv4 resources obtained from the waiting list prior to the 
end of the 60-month probation would seem to flaunt the intent of the 
probation. However, once past the 60-month probation, allowing the 
transfer or lease of IPv4 resources seems consistent with 
the policies intent.


I would like to point out that the transfer market has been 
remarkably successful in making IPv4 resources voluntarily available 
that otherwise would not have been available or would have required a 
highly litigious reclamation process to be made available. In 
addition, leasing seems to be a natural evolution of the transfer 
market for those that do not have the capital funding to obtain IPv4 
resources on the transfer market. Finally, despite a few issues, the 
waiting list has also been remarkably successful at ensuring any IPv4 
resources returned to ARIN, for whatever reason, are redistributed to 
the ARIN community.


Suggestions that ARIN should instead auction the waiting list 
resources, while seemingly logical, given the success of the transfer 
market, nevertheless seem incompatible with ARIN's not-for-profit status.


In summary, leasing IPv4 resources obtained from the waiting list 
after the 60-month probation should be allowed. Prior to that, 
leasing should not be allowed. How we effectively enforce that is 
another question entirely, and I personally don't have any good 
answers to that question.


Thanks

On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 10:54 AM WOOD Alison * DAS 
 wrote:


Good morning PPML!

I would like community feedback on the leasing of ip space that
is obtained from the waitlist.  Please let me know what you think
and if a policy proposal would be warranted.

Thank you!

-Alison

___
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.



--
===
David Farmer Email:far...@umn.edu 
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 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 contacti...@arin.net  if you experience any issues.


--
Ron Grant
Balan Software/Networks
Network Architecture & Programming
604-737-2113

ca.linkedin.com/in/obiron

___
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 contacti...@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

Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Experience Report Working Group Leasing Question

2023-05-07 Thread Fernando Frediani

How on earth people are still considering such an absurd ? From time to 
time it seems that some people take turns in trying make IP leasing 
looks a normal thing, an acceptable using the same excuse that "the 
market already accepted" and throwing in the bin that IP addresses are 
for those who have a need justify for it. Rules have always been and are 
still based on that and companies always have received IP space based on 
their justified needs, not in the basis that they can pay more.


ARIN is no an IP factory that sells it as other companies manufacturer 
and sell servers or routers and as such should never even consider 
anything related to allocate IP space to those who can pay more instead 
of those who subjected themselves to the rules, to the same line and 
justify the need.


As times passes into IP exhaustion seems people keep trying to play 
smart to get an extra tiny portion of IP addresses as if that would make 
any difference to their business. Any left over IP space should be given 
only to newcomers in order to give them a chance to exist in the 
Internet and those who have already some get over with the reality of 
IPv4 exhaustion and find other ways to keep going with their business.


Fernando

On 05/05/2023 14:21, John Santos wrote:
Totally against.  This violates the principle of "justified need".  It 
is rent-seeking.


On 5/5/2023 11:54 AM, WOOD Alison * DAS wrote:

Good morning PPML!

I would like community feedback on the leasing of ip space that is 
obtained from the waitlist.  Please let me know what you think and if 
a policy proposal would be warranted.


Thank you!

-Alison


___
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] Wait List Space - Feedback Requested

2023-01-27 Thread Fernando Frediani


Hello

My answer is absolutely not to stay in the waiting list. Waiting list 
should not be a hope for majority that are there, only for those who 
have very little and may be able to wait as long as necessary to get a 
few more to keep going with their business. Any other needs that cannot 
wait should be done via a normal transfer process. And someone that 
received something via a transfer has conditions to do others and depend 
even less from the waiting list.
Also stimulating organizations to get a little as a /24 is bad for 
everybody else as contributes to fragment and pollute even more the 
global routing table.
A /20 to /22 is enough for newer organizations to start with and get 
into business. More than that go to the transfer market besides improve 
technical stuff to know better how to live with less IPv4.


Fernando

On 27/01/2023 18:35, WOOD Alison * DAS wrote:


Hello!

The Policy Experience Report Working Group has been working on the 
Policy Experience Report from ARIN 50.  I would appreciate your 
feedback on the following issue regarding transferring waitlist space.


The current wait list criteria is:

  * Must have a /20 or less in total IPv4 holdings.
  * May request up to a /22.
  * Removed from list if IPv4 received via 8.3/8.4 transfer.
  * Received ip space is eligible for needs-based transfer after five
years.

The Policy Experience Working Group would like your feedback on a 
potential policy idea: With waiting list times being in years, should 
an org be eligible to get a small block (e.g. /24) via 8.3/8.4 and 
stay on the waiting list?


The working group appreciates your feedback.

Thank you!


___
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 contacti...@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] Are we an ISP or an End-User? Can our designation change at a later time?

2023-01-04 Thread Fernando Frediani

Interesting this topic. Generally speaking I always found a bit strange 
(not only in ARIN) to have this distinction between ISP and End-user. In 
practice things should not differ much. Only thing that would possible 
remain slightly different are the details of justifications that must be 
provided and the size of the block to be allocated.


Another thing that I wanted to understand better is the reasoning to 
allocate a significant smaller IPv6 block to a said end-user 
organization given it is not so scarce resource. At least a /40 should 
be minimal default for a end-user (not a /48) and a /32 for any size of 
ISP. For now my personal impression is to create some artificial 
scarcity in order to have different levels of Service Category.


If anyone can shed a light on it would help to understand better for 
this to exist this way now a days.

Thanks
Fernando

Em 03/01/2023 19:18, Matthew Petach escreveu:


Hi Jamie,

As someone who faced a similar challenge many years ago, I'll chime in 
with my thoughts on the matter...



On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 11:32 PM Jamie Nelson 
 wrote:


ARIN newbie here.

[...]


Questions:
1.) From our reading of the NRPM, it seems like we currently fall
within the definition of an ISP, but what happens if this changes
subsequent to our initial allocation? (*)  Likewise, what happens if
an organization that was directly assigned resources as an end-user
begins offering Internet services to other organizations? The NRPM
does not appear to address these scenarios.


You're providing services to people who are not directly employees,
contractors, or otherwise immediately affiliated with your organization.
I was in a similar boat, and after looking carefully at how law 
enforcement

approached ISPs for information versus end-users, we made a decision
to apply for resources as an ISP, as we provided services to people who
were not directly under our umbrella.

Once your resources are granted under the ISP rules, they remain that
way, even if your ISP business ceases to exist--though, the idea of an
ISP 'ceasing to exist' is a questionable one, since in almost every case,
a successor entity takes over the business, and the number resources
that go with the ISP business follow the customers to the new owner.
See for example the Sprint wireline ISP network being sold to Cogent;
the number resources don't stay with T-mobile, they go with the Sprint
customers currently using them over to Cogent.  If you eventually sell 
the

colocation business to someone else, you'll have to wrestle with how the
number resources are to be handled.  As such, I would strongly recommend
you allocate your number resources accordingly; if you think the ISP 
business
may continue to grow, it may be worth registering 2 different ORG-IDs, 
one
for your (end-user-like) corporate network, and a separate one for the 
(isp-like)
colocation business, so that if in the future you decide to divest the 
ISP side

of the business, you can do so without having to perform massive surgery
on your network.  Just a thought on saving some potential renumbering
pain down the road.   ^_^;

3.) Is conversion from ISP to End User (and vice versa) possible if
the nature of an organization's business changes?  Is it necessary?


Lisa already answered this; I would note that there's no secret police 
that

come after you if your business changes form down the road, it's really
your decision if you feel a better set of policies would apply if you 
were to

reclassify your business.

4.) Is ISP/end-user status recorded in ARIN's database on a per-prefix
basis, or is it per-organization?  How does one currently determine
this status from Whois?  I tried to find examples of organizations
that would typically be seen as end-users, but there were no clues in
their organizational Whois results, and Whois queries on their
prefixes all indicate "NetType: Direct Allocation", just like ISPs, as
opposed to "NetType: Direct Assignment".  This would be consistent
with a clue I found in the problem statement of Draft Policy
ARIN-2022-12, which indicates that "direct assignments are no longer
being utilized in ARIN databases", but does this then imply that the
ISP/end-user distinction has been eliminated entirely?


Functionally, the distinction is really about checking to see which 
policies
your organization falls under when looking at your utilization to see 
if you

qualify for additional blocks; you should definitely read through
https://www.arin.net/resources/registry/reassignments/
to get a good understanding of the distinction.  So, it's not that a 
specific

block is a direct assignment versus a direct allocation, it's that your
ORG-ID falls under utilization requirements for ISPs versus end users;
and because that can change all at once if you request a reclassification
of your organization, trying to identify block-by-block which rules 
they fall

Re: [arin-ppml] Transferring Waiting List Space - Feedback Requested

2022-11-22 Thread Fernando Frediani

That is precisely one of the main points: to disincentivize
organizations from joining the waitlist in order to sell for a profit later.

If an organization acquires space from the waitlist no longer needs it
it should not be able to sell the space given that space was already
'acquired' in a scenario that doesn't allow anymore any ease the selling
of it. These tiny spaces available should really be for those who don't
have absolutely any space to allow them to exist in the Internet and
undertake.

If an organization has space acquired from the waiting list and not
longer need or justify it should return it to ARIN voluntarily or
forcibly. And there should be the necessary provisions in the policies
to support ARIN to take that space back in order to allocate to those
who really need. Sometimes when this is mentioned some people don't
like to read maybe because they put themselves in a future hypothetical
scenario so them get scary to agree but that is the correct thing to do
in the sense o proper fairness. No organization should be allowed to
hold unused or space that lost its justification while there are plenty
of other organizations waiting to use it properly to connect people to
the Internet, specially for space received via the waiting list.

The most important thing to change about the waiting list is to only
allocate them to organizations that do not have any space at all. Those
who have already can live with it or alternatively go to the transfer
market.

Fernando

On 22/11/2022 13:46, Nick Nugent wrote:

Re: Preventing waitlist recipients from transferring their space
indefinitely (instead of only a five-year lockout)

The point of this change seems to be to disincentivize organizations
from joining the waitlist simply to acquire space they can later sell
for a profit.

That makes sense. But it helps to consider how changing the lockout
period affects other incentives.

If an organization acquires space from the waitlist and no longer
needs it (assume the five-year period has elapsed), that org has a
strong financial incentive to sell the space. For example, if the
market price per address at that time is, say, $37, a /22 might be
worth ~$38,000. (Not making any statements about market price; just
picking an arbitrary price for the sake of this hypothetical.) Selling
that space would put it in the hands of another entity that would
actually use it, improving the efficient allocation of space.

On the other hand, if the organization that acquired waitlist space no
longer needs it, and ARIN restricts the org indefinitely from
transferring that space to another entity, then it would cost that org
only $500/year to hold onto it instead of returning it to ARIN. The
organization might think, "Well, I don't currently need this space.
But it's possible I might need it in the future. Better to pay
$500/year and keep it just in case rather than return it to ARIN and
go to the back of the waitlist if I need IPv4 space in the future."
(Invitation to supplement/correct my fee assumptions here)

In other words, permitting resale after some period might promote the
more efficient use of space. What is the right resale lockout period
to promote the efficient use of space while discouraging entities from
joining the waitlist solely to get space they can resell? Hard to say.
But I don't think an indefinite lockout period adequately balances
those competing incentives.

Nick

On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 2:30 PM Brian Jones wrote:

Alison,
As I stated at the ARIN50 meeting, in light of the report John
Sweeting gave

(https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN50/materials/1020_policyimplementation.pdf)
I would be in favor of reducing the minimum allocation size to a
/24. I am not necessarily in favor of lowering the maximum
holdings for eligibility. I would not favor eliminating the
transfer of Waitlist blocks. I think five years serves the purpose
for that.

Brian Jones
Virginia Tech
ARIN Advisory Council

On Nov 14, 2022, at 4:42 PM, WOOD Alison * DAS
wrote:

Hello!
The Policy Experience Report Working Group has been working on
the Policy Experience Report from ARIN 50. I would appreciate
your feedback on the following issue regarding transferring
waitlist space.
The current wait list criteria is:

* Must have a /20 or less in total IPv4 holdings.
* May request up to a /22.
* Removed from list if IPv4 received via 8.3/8.4 transfer.
* Received ip space is eligible for needs-based transfer after
five years.

The Policy Experience Working Group would like your feedback on a
potential policy that would restrict the transfer of IP space
that has been obtained from the waiting list. In other words,
any IP address space received from the waiting list would be
ineligible for transfer indefinitely and encouraged to be
returned

Re: [arin-ppml] Transferring Waiting List Space - Feedback Requested

2022-11-14 Thread Fernando Frediani

Good question David, but I don't think that is too hard.

If an organization (a legal entity) has any IPv4 blocks assigned to it,
regardless of the usage it would not be eligible already and that
eliminates the vast majority of cases which sounds good. Any
common-traditional new company that has entered into the Internet
industry to connect people or provide any type of hosting/cloud
services. Of course that would be questions around new companies that
belong to the same economic group of another one who has IPv4 space and
that needs to be worked out properly.
Sometimes when we discuss proposals here I feel that sometimes is wished
to foresee absolutely every possible scenario and that is not always
possible but it is still a big gain from preventing most of unfair or
unnecessary situations.

I almost agree that the 60-month restriction is already good to function
as indefinite in practice, but a improvement to the mentioned proposal
is that it makes impossible to transfer that space received from the
waiting list to any other organization and forces it to be returned to
ARIN that has the ability to better and more neutral and fairly assign
it to someone else in the future when the situation worse.

Finally the size of the block received should stay at maximum of /22. As
mentioned reducing it would make it useless for most cases, contributes
even more to increase the size of the routing tables faster, makes it
nearly impossible to do any proper traffic engineering in some
situations and it allows these newcomers to come to a minimum size where
they can reach cruising speed that they can have financial capability to
decide for a necessary transfer or invest in technology that makes
better usages of that fewer space they have.

Fernando Frediani

On 14/11/2022 20:35, David Farmer wrote:
Conceptually, as an abstract idea, I have no problem with restricting
the waiting list to newcomers only. However, the implementation of
such a restriction could prove problematic; What is a true newcomer?
How do we prevent gaming of this restriction?

The current 60-month restriction on transfers is already functionally
indefinite, at least in my option.

Finally, the waiting list was never intended as a viable option to
meet a network's need for resources; its purpose in policy is to
ensure ARIN has a mechanism to distribute any IPv4 resources that are
reclaimed or otherwise become available to ARIN.

Thanks.

On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 5:09 PM Fernando Frediani
wrote:

Then need to detail and analyze what sound unreasonable in
changing 5 years period to indefinite.

Reducing the request size to anything smaller than an /22 is
giving a such small and useless space that will probably make no
difference to whoever receives it. A /22 is already a very small
amount (almost symbolic) but at least gives the ability to a newer
organizations to work with something, get into the market,
innovate, reach some proper size and then invest in different
technologies to make better usage of few IPv4 and deploy IPv6
properly in order to keep existing in the market. Plus giving out
/24-only to organizations in the waiting list would contribute
even more to increase the size of the routing table with very
little gain.

A change in the waiting-list rules that would be certainly be
welcome is restrict it only to newcomers that have no IPv4 space
at all. Those who already have had already enough time to learn
live with what they have and organize themselves to either do IPv4
transfers and deploy IPv6 in order to reduce its dependency
whenever possible.

Fernando

On 14/11/2022 19:53, David Farmer via ARIN-PPML wrote:

I reviewed the Policy Implementation and Experience Report
presented at ARIN 50;

https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN50/materials/1020_policyimplementation.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RruDSG32D0M=PL726kQ53RX6i-x05T2JLckh59gWtLs1TR=5569s

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RruDSG32D0M=PL726kQ53RX6i-x05T2JLckh59gWtLs1TR=5569s>

https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN50/day1_transcript/#policy-implementation-and-experience-report

I don't support any changes to the transfer provisions of the
waiting list. The current transfer provisions seem reasonable to me.

However, if I were going to support any changes to the waiting
list, I would support reducing the request size from /22 to /24.

Thanks.

On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 3:42 PM WOOD Alison * DAS
wrote:

Hello!

The Policy Experience Report Working Group has been working
on the Policy Experience Report from ARIN 50. I would
appreciate your feedback on the following issue regarding
transferring waitlist space.

The current wait list criteria is:

* Must have a /20 or less in total IPv4 holdings.
* May request up to

Re: [arin-ppml] Transferring Waiting List Space - Feedback Requested

2022-11-14 Thread Fernando Frediani

Then need to detail and analyze what sound unreasonable in changing 5
years period to indefinite.

Reducing the request size to anything smaller than an /22 is giving a
such small and useless space that will probably make no difference to
whoever receives it. A /22 is already a very small amount (almost
symbolic) but at least gives the ability to a newer organizations to
work with something, get into the market, innovate, reach some proper
size and then invest in different technologies to make better usage of
few IPv4 and deploy IPv6 properly in order to keep existing in the
market. Plus giving out /24-only to organizations in the waiting list
would contribute even more to increase the size of the routing table
with very little gain.

A change in the waiting-list rules that would be certainly be welcome is
restrict it only to newcomers that have no IPv4 space at all. Those who
already have had already enough time to learn live with what they have
and organize themselves to either do IPv4 transfers and deploy IPv6 in
order to reduce its dependency whenever possible.

Fernando

On 14/11/2022 19:53, David Farmer via ARIN-PPML wrote:
I reviewed the Policy Implementation and Experience Report presented
at ARIN 50;

https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN50/materials/1020_policyimplementation.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RruDSG32D0M=PL726kQ53RX6i-x05T2JLckh59gWtLs1TR=5569s

https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN50/day1_transcript/#policy-implementation-and-experience-report

I don't support any changes to the transfer provisions of the waiting
list. The current transfer provisions seem reasonable to me.

However, if I were going to support any changes to the waiting list, I
would support reducing the request size from /22 to /24.

Thanks.

On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 3:42 PM WOOD Alison * DAS
wrote:

Hello!

The Policy Experience Report Working Group has been working on the
Policy Experience Report from ARIN 50. I would appreciate your
feedback on the following issue regarding transferring waitlist space.

The current wait list criteria is:

The Policy Experience Working Group would like your feedback on a
potential policy that would restrict the transfer of IP space that
has been obtained from the waiting list. In other words, any IP
address space received from the waiting list would be ineligible
for transfer indefinitely and encouraged to be returned to ARIN if
not in use. This policy would be specific to transfers and not M
& A’s.

The working group appreciates your feedback.

Thank you!

--
===
David Farmer Email:far...@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 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 contacti...@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] Transferring Waiting List Space - Feedback Requested

2022-11-14 Thread Fernando Frediani

Initially the idea sounds good in order to prevent any organization to 
sit in the waiting list with the intention to simply earn money with the 
transfer of the well waited space that surely should not be for that 
intention.


Fernando

On 14/11/2022 18:42, WOOD Alison * DAS wrote:


Hello!

The Policy Experience Report Working Group has been working on the 
Policy Experience Report from ARIN 50.  I would appreciate your 
feedback on the following issue regarding transferring waitlist space.


The current wait list criteria is:

  * Must have a /20 or less in total IPv4 holdings.
  * May request up to a /22.
  * Removed from list if IPv4 received via 8.3/8.4 transfer.
  * Received ip space is eligible for needs-based transfer after five
years.

The Policy Experience Working Group would like your feedback on a 
potential policy that would restrict the transfer of IP space that has 
been obtained from the waiting list.  In other words, any IP address 
space received from the waiting list would be ineligible for transfer 
indefinitely and encouraged to be returned to ARIN if not in use.  
This policy would be specific to transfers and not M & A’s.


The working group appreciates your feedback.

Thank you!


___
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 contacti...@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] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-12: ARIN-2022-12: Direct Assignment Language Update

2022-11-03 Thread Fernando Frediani

In the case where ARIN issued then let's keep calling it by its name, so 
nobody can think otherwise and is always aware that something that was 
once issued can be revoked if rules surrounding that are circumvented, 
because it is not uncommon many thing that once issued that becomes a 
irrevocable property and orgs can do whatever they want with resources 
regardless of the policies.
For other cases where not issued than can call something else like 
ARIN-registered or something.


Fernando

On 03/11/2022 18:11, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote:
Rather than “ARIN-issued”, I suggest either “ARIN-registered” or 
“ARIN-recorded” or “ARIN-managed”.


ARIN did not issue many of the allocations and assignments currently 
recorded in the ARIN database.


Otherwise, I support the policy as written. In fact, it is 
sufficiently non-operable in not changing the way in which ARIN 
manages the registry that I would even nominate it for consideration 
as an editorial change.


Owen



On Nov 3, 2022, at 08:46, ARIN  wrote:

The following Draft Policy has been revised:
* ARIN-2022-12: Direct Assignment Language Update
Revised text is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2022_12/
You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will 
evaluate the discussion 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
Senior Policy Analyst
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
Draft Policy ARIN-2022-12: ARIN-2022-12: Direct Assignment Language 
Update

Problem Statement:
As a result of ARIN’s fee harmonization direct assignments are no 
longer being utilized within ARIN databases therefore language around 
that has been deprecated and should be modernized.

Policy Statement:
Section 3.6.3:
Remove “direct assignment” from “This policy applies to every 
Organization that has a direct assignment, direct allocation, or AS 
number from ARIN (or one of its predecessor registries) or a 
reallocation from an upstream ISP.”
Section 4.2.2, paragraph 1: change “direct assignments or 
allocations” to “ARIN-issued IPv4 addresses”
Section 4.2.2, paragraph 2: change “direct allocations, direct 
assignments, re-allocations or reassignments” to “ARIN-issued IPv4 
addresses, re-allocations or reassignments”
Section 4.3.2: change “direct assignments or allocations” to 
“ARIN-issued IPv4 addresses”
Section 6.5.8: change “Direct Assignments from ARIN to End-user 
Organizations” to “End-user Allocations”
Section 8.5.4: change “direct assignments or allocations” to 
“ARIN-issued IPv4 addresses”
Section 8.5.6: change “direct assignments or allocations” to 
“ARIN-issued IPv4 addresses”

Timetable for Implementation: Immediate
___
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 contactinfo@arin.netif 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 contacti...@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] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not Intended

2022-09-13 Thread Fernando Frediani


Hello Martin

Why does it matter for the discussion of this proposal here in ARIN to 
follow its normal way ?
It has been clarified already the intention is not to present it as a 
Global Policy and other proposals have been presented in other RIRs 
already but not all, so if it doesn't happen in all 5 it doesn't really 
matter for it to reach consensus in ARIN alone. Also even if it is 
presented in all five each one follow its own process and it may reach 
consensus in one but not in another.


Hope it helps to clarify it.
Fernando

Em 13/09/2022 09:44, Martin Hannigan escreveu:


Sorry to harp on this, but procedurally, for your reference below.

https://www.arin.net/vault/announcements/2009/20090622.html
https://www.arin.net/vault/about_us/ac/ac2011_0128.html

You can search ["globally coordinated policy" ARIN ] in your favorite 
search tool and find many references over the years regarding 
"globally coordinated" policy, policy which may fit for all RIR's but 
isn't a suitable action the IANA can apply to RIR's.


You said this:

"In other RIRs, the leasing of addresses is not authorized either and 
since it is not explicit in their policy manuals either, this proposal 
will be presented as well."


Which still isn't clear on what your intention is. If you intend to 
submit this same policy to all five RIR regions its all good.


Thanks,

-M<



On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 10:10 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML 
 wrote:


I don’t think there is such thing (formally speaking), and is not.

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

El 12/9/22, 14:24, "Martin Hannigan"  escribió:

On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 08:02 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML
 wrote:

Hi Martin,

No, is not a global policy, they are only meant for IANA-RIR
matters.

We just mention what is the actual situation in other RIRs,
also because we have submitted similar policies, but as we all
know, it may happen in one region and not in others.

A globally coordinated policy is one intended to be adopted
similarly across the 5 RIR’s. A global policy is intended for
application to the 5 RIRs by the IANA.

Is it either? It certainly does sound like it is the former.

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

El 12/9/22, 13:55, "ARIN-PPML en nombre de Martin Hannigan"

escribió:

Very confusing. If this is to proceed it needs to be
substantially  boiled down to what it may be intended to mean.

However, is the author saying this is to be a globally
coordinated policy?

“ In other RIRs, the leasing of addresses is not authorized
either and since it is not explicit in their policy manuals
either, this proposal will be presented as well.”

This should be clearer. There are subtle implications like
expecting  closely aligned text across regions.

Before expending tons of energy on a coordinated policy, early
feedback is a good predictor of outcome and shouldn't be taken
lightly.

Thanks —

On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 12:29 ARIN  wrote:

On 18 August 2022, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
"ARIN-prop-308: Leasing Not Intended" as a Draft Policy.

Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9 is below and can be found at:

https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2022_9/

You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML.
The AC will evaluate the discussion 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

Senior Policy Analyst

American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not Intended

Problem Statement:

“IPv6 Policy (section 6.4.1.) explicitly mention that
address space is not a property. This is also stated in
the RSA (section 7.) for all the Internet Number Resources.

However, with the spirit of the IPv4 allocation policies
being the same, there is not an equivalent text for IPv4,
neither for ASNs.

Further to that, policies for IPv4 and IPv6 allocations,
clearly state that allocations are based on justified need
and not solely on a predicted customer base. Similar

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not Intended

2022-09-12 Thread Fernando Frediani


Hi Adam

On 12/09/2022 13:56, Adam Thompson wrote:


The error in what Fernando just said is: parent companies do not, in 
fact, transfer their possibly-valuable IP space to subsidiaries - they 
assign/allocate instead.  Until very recently, that wasn’t possible in 
many cases, so we wound up with yet another instance of ARIN policy 
that actively prevented the database from being as accurate as 
possible. That’s fixed (more or less) as of this year – I admit I 
haven’t done all the SWIPs I should have by now, now that I can!


My primary concern with this policy is that it will do much the same – 
drive leasing underground, and the public registry will then fail to 
accurately reflect reality in yet another way.


This cannot be more important than have the rules followed, rules that 
were agreed when the contracts were originally signed by each member. We 
cannot accept a situation that may be out of the rules or abnormal and 
turn into something normal just because some people do that and "we have 
to accept". No, in the other hand people must follow what is expected 
and those who don't will be subject to sanctions. There is a reason most 
rules exist and in general these have been discussed extensively to get 
to that point.


There was not much a while ago a discussion in this very same list where 
many people showed their contrariety about IPs being leased "per se" 
without any form of connectivity services involved and how many of them 
disapprove to see that happening, just look at the archives, otherwise 
this proposal would not be here.  So there is a fair amount of people 
who are equally suffering with IPv4 exhaustion that do not wish to keep 
watching IP addresses being handled by third parties, and end up going 
to those who can pay more rather than to those who really have proper 
justification to get them directly from ARIN following the same rules 
that everybody else is subjected equally.


It is common during these times some may want to look 'more beautiful' 
than others there is always a special reason 'for that case' and this is 
where a lot of unfairness is generated.


I hold ARIN’s goal of maintaining an open, accurate database of IP 
address usage to be ultimately far more important than its explicit 
non-goal of regulating IP address usage.


I believe this proposal tries to put ARIN into the role of “Internet 
cop” again and is inappropriate.


This is not true and it is often used to oppose this type of idea of 
complete ban leasing because it damages specific type of business like 
IP brokerage.
ARIN or any RIR duties are not limited only to keep an accurate database 
of IP address, but also to make sure that those IPs - that doesn't 
belong to any resources holder, important to remember - are used in the 
fair and correct way they should. And if it not the case to revoke those 
resources. This doesn't have to do with the way people operate their 
networks in the sense of what BGP filters they apply, what Transit 
Providers they get, if they use CGNAT or issue Public IPs to their 
customers, etc.
This has to do with following the policy rules regarding IP address and 
in this sense it is up to the RIR to make sure of that without anything 
related to "internet police"


Preventing legitimate users from using leased IP addresses does not 
help the internet.  Preventing illegitimate users from doing so might 
well help the internet, but leads straight into the classic “only 
criminals will have guns” argument – why would anyone with a shady use 
ever use truthful information in an application to ARIN in the first 
place?


A legitimate user should get these addresses from ARIN directly and sign 
a contract with it otherwise they can get the address from their 
upstream provider who provides connectivity services to them. An 
illegitimate resource holder should return them back if they don't have 
usage anymore.


This helps the internet when organizations abide by the rules, is more 
secure in the sense that there are mechanisms to stop abuses and 
security issues and everybody is subjected to the same rules and 
requirements to have address to something they don't own.


Fernando


-Adam

*Adam Thompson*

Consultant, Infrastructure Services

MERLIN

100 - 135 Innovation Drive

Winnipeg, MB R3T 6A8

(204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only)

https://www.merlin.mb.ca <https://www.merlin.mb.ca/>

Chat with me on Teams 
<https://teams.microsoft.com/l/chat/0/0?users=athomp...@merlin.mb.ca>


*From:*ARIN-PPML  *On Behalf Of *Fernando 
Frediani

*Sent:* September 11, 2022 10:30 PM
*To:* arin-ppml@arin.net
*Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not Intended

Hello Bruce
Thanks for sharing these concerns. Seem reasonable ones.

Talking briefly it is hard to catch all possible details, but I see 
that in a network infrastructure transfer to a subsidiary there are 
different ways that can be done. In general these subsi

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not Intended

2022-09-12 Thread Fernando Frediani


Hi

Em 12/09/2022 13:09, Mike Burns escreveu:


Hi Fernando,

Why not go back and fix the proposal language mis-describing the 
situation at other RIRs and define leasing within your proposal, and 
provide us with a new version to consider?


The situation in the other RIRs are most correct and confirmed. Only 
RIPE has clarified in a way previously and now seems to have changed 
their mind slightly.
In any way this is not an excuse for the proposal to keep its normal 
discussion as it is not a critic point that doesn't change the spirit of 
the proposal and its main point to be discussed which is making it clear 
in the policy text. Leasing in this context is already well defined 
based mainly on direct connectivity as discussed in several messages.


I will simply point out that leasing is effectively a transfer to 
those in need, and that not everybody in need can afford a transfer 
purchase. This policy would prevent those in need from receiving 
blocks unless they have deep pockets. It’s not fair to smaller, less 
capitalized businesses who need IPv4, so I remain opposed.


This looks more emotional words in order to try protect the leasing 
practice than a real world that have options available within the rules 
and without having do things in a way that is bad for most community . 
While I don't deny that some organizations may be having access to small 
chunk of address via these practices this can not be more important than 
things like the security of the resource holder not having immediate 
control of what is used by the customer and more important than that the 
unfairness that is causes specially in times of IPv4 Exhaustion in order 
to make sure resources go *directly* (which means from ARIN) to the 
resource holder and not from um resources holder to someone that has the 
ability to get these addresses by themselves via a transfer for example.


Fernando


Regards,

Mike

*From:* ARIN-PPML  *On Behalf Of *Fernando 
Frediani

*Sent:* Saturday, September 10, 2022 1:25 PM
*To:* arin-ppml 
*Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not Intended

I don't understand your way to oppose this proposal. You want to 
oppose it based a small subset of 'situation in other regions' text ? 
That your only point to oppose this proposal ?
The text clearly says the leasing of addresses is not authorized 
explicitly in the policy manuals and in most RIRs it has been already 
confirmed this is not allowed in most RIRs (exactly as it should be). 
In RIPE that you are picking in order to try oppose this proposal it 
mentions specifically that this cannot be used as a justification of 
need and it is obvious you cannot go to RIPE, ask for addresses and 
justify that you will use them to lease to someone else, pretending to 
be a sub-RIR. It is just simple.


In ARIN this proposal will make it very clear not only for 
justification of need which is already forbidden but also later on for 
usage and that is the right thing to do in order to avoid more 
unfairness with the whole community in times of IPv4 exhaustion.
What is the logic for not being able to justify the need based on 
leasing but be allowed to used for them for leasing later on ?


The point here is quiet simple and most people are able to understand: 
if you have a need to keep IP resources as a resource holder for 
justified need proposes you are fine to keep the addresses 
indefinitely, if not your should either transfer them to whoever has 
real need or return them back to ARIN so them can be directly assigned 
by ARIN to any member who really needs them and have no intermediaries 
in the middle pretending to be a RIR and bringing real security issues 
to the whole Internet.


Fernando

On 10/09/2022 14:01, Mike Burns wrote:

Fernando,

Your proposal says leasing is banned at other RIRs.

I am telling you once again that leasing is NOT banned at RIPE and
leased addresses CAN be used as justification at RIPE.

I speak from direct experience.

And once again there is no policy nor contract requirement to
utilize addresses at ARIN for their originally intended purposes,
ergo leasing is not prohibited to address holders at ARIN.

Please define the word leasing as that impacts enforcement and
other issues.

This proposal remains deeply flawed.

So I remain deeply opposed.

Regards,

Mike

 On Fri, 09 Sep 2022 12:44:10 -0400 *Fernando Frediani
 <mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>* wrote ---

Hello

There is no such error in the proposal.
This has been checked as being the interpretation staff gives
to the current policy in most RIRs. APNIC is just an example
that have confirmed it publicly a couples of days ago.
You may not find all the very specific words you may wish for
in the text, but it is not much difficult for them to have
such interpretation given the resources must follow a

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not Intended

2022-09-11 Thread Fernando Frediani


Hello Bruce
Thanks for sharing these concerns. Seem reasonable ones.

Talking briefly it is hard to catch all possible details, but I see that 
in a network infrastructure transfer to a subsidiary there are different 
ways that can be done. In general these subsidiary may likely have 
direct connectivity from the parent company in a provider/customer 
relationship, but when it is not the case I think it is fair to think 
that the subsidiary or startup company may not need a large amount of 
addresses to start with, so the parent willing to support it can easily 
transfer a small amount of address via the normal transfer process and 
allow that company to start giving more flexibility so it to grow 
overtime and if necessary make subsequent transfers.


I understand the scenario you describe may look legitimate, but the 
issue is to have too generic and open way that end up allowing the usage 
of resources in a forbidden or unfair way that is damageable to the 
Internet community.
The most common to start with is, if the resource holder doesn't provide 
any type of connectivity to the receiving organization it may cause 
security issues because the resource holder does not have immediate 
physical control to manager or filter them.


Some of the drivers of the proposal is to make sure that resources are 
always used in the most fair way and that doesn't cause security issues 
to Internet ecosystem overtime. It doesn't sound fair, specially in 
times of IPv4 exhaustion that a shared resources that nobody owns alone, 
to go to those who can pay more rather than to those who really need and 
justify for them according to the current rules that everyone is 
subjected to. There is no justification to have a prefix allocated from 
an organization to another if the second one is perfectly able to get 
them directly from a neutral and well established organization - ARIN.


I hope it helps to address some of your concerns, otherwise we carry on.

Best regards
Fernando

On 10/09/2022 16:25, Bruce Cornett wrote:
I still see a significant issue. Consider the transfer of network 
infrastructure to a subsidiary or possibly a startup.  And for the 
moment the parent corporation is not providing connectivity.  If the 
blocks are transferred to the subsidiary and something goes awry with 
that business segment, access to the blocks could be lost.  The end 
users with connectivity go belly up with essentially no recourse.


The reasonable solution is to simply allow the subsidiary or startup 
to use the blocks subject to an agreement between the two parties.


While I can't suggest I know the driver for the proposal, I would 
guess it's to reign in the month to month leasing of address blocks 
for dubious services.


It may make sense to make a policy that disallows leasing for network 
usage justification.


Bruce C

On Sep 10, 2022, at 10:13 AM, Fernando Frediani 
 wrote:




Hello Bruce

There is not problem at all in these scenarios as resources can be 
easily transferred and there are policies for that already, therefore 
the mechanism already exist.


Fernando

On 10/09/2022 13:31, Bruce Cornett via ARIN-PPML wrote:


Hello

I see a potential problem where changes in corporate structure occur 
when shifting day to day operations to subsidiaries or sister 
corporations, leaving the block assignment with the original holder.


Bruce C

On Sep 9, 2022, at 9:44 AM, Fernando Frediani 
 wrote:




Hello

There is no such error in the proposal.
This has been checked as being the interpretation staff gives to 
the current policy in most RIRs. APNIC is just an example that have 
confirmed it publicly a couples of days ago.
You may not find all the very specific words you may wish for in 
the text, but it is not much difficult for them to have such 
interpretation given the resources must follow a proper 
justification of what they will be used for and that can never be 
that you will use them for leasing (rent of lend). ARIN also 
already confirmed in this very same list they don't accept it as a 
justification.


There is no much around the term leasing. If an organization who 
don't provide any connectivity services to another simply rent or 
lend IP space, with or without a cost associated that is something 
that must not be since they no longer have a justification to keep 
that IP space and instead should either transfer it to those who 
really justify or return to ARIN.


Fernando

On 24/08/2022 11:04, Mike Burns wrote:


Opposed, I think the proposal contains errors that should be fixed 
before the discussion proceeds.


For example this statement :

“In other RIRs, the leasing of addresses is not authorized either 
and since it is not explicit in their policy manuals either, this 
proposal will be presented as well.”


If it is not in their policy manuals, how can the proposers state 
leasing is not authorized?


Where do the proposers think authority comes from, if not from 
policy and contract?


Are they just

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not Intended

2022-09-10 Thread Fernando Frediani

I don't understand your way to oppose this proposal. You want to oppose 
it based a small subset of 'situation in other regions' text ? That your 
only point to oppose this proposal ?
The text clearly says the leasing of addresses is not authorized 
explicitly in the policy manuals and in most RIRs it has been already 
confirmed this is not allowed in most RIRs (exactly as it should be). In 
RIPE that you are picking in order to try oppose this proposal it 
mentions specifically that this cannot be used as a justification of 
need and it is obvious you cannot go to RIPE, ask for addresses and 
justify that you will use them to lease to someone else, pretending to 
be a sub-RIR. It is just simple.


In ARIN this proposal will make it very clear not only for justification 
of need which is already forbidden but also later on for usage and that 
is the right thing to do in order to avoid more unfairness with the 
whole community in times of IPv4 exhaustion.
What is the logic for not being able to justify the need based on 
leasing but be allowed to used for them for leasing later on ?


The point here is quiet simple and most people are able to understand: 
if you have a need to keep IP resources as a resource holder for 
justified need proposes you are fine to keep the addresses indefinitely, 
if not your should either transfer them to whoever has real need or 
return them back to ARIN so them can be directly assigned by ARIN to any 
member who really needs them and have no intermediaries in the middle 
pretending to be a RIR and bringing real security issues to the whole 
Internet.


Fernando

On 10/09/2022 14:01, Mike Burns wrote:

Fernando,

Your proposal says leasing is banned at other RIRs.

I am telling you once again that leasing is NOT banned at RIPE and 
leased addresses CAN be used as justification at RIPE.

I speak from direct experience.

And once again there is no policy nor contract requirement to utilize 
addresses at ARIN for their originally intended purposes, ergo leasing 
is not prohibited to address holders at ARIN.


Please define the word leasing as that impacts enforcement and other 
issues.


This proposal remains deeply flawed.

So I remain deeply opposed.

Regards,
Mike





 On Fri, 09 Sep 2022 12:44:10 -0400 *Fernando Frediani 
* wrote ---


Hello

There is no such error in the proposal.
This has been checked as being the interpretation staff gives to
the current policy in most RIRs. APNIC is just an example that
have confirmed it publicly a couples of days ago.
You may not find all the very specific words you may wish for in
the text, but it is not much difficult for them to have such
interpretation given the resources must follow a proper
justification of what they will be used for and that can never be
that you will use them for leasing (rent of lend). ARIN also
already confirmed in this very same list they don't accept it as a
justification.

There is no much around the term leasing. If an organization who
don't provide any connectivity services to another simply rent or
lend IP space, with or without a cost associated that is something
that must not be since they no longer have a justification to keep
that IP space and instead should either transfer it to those who
really justify or return to ARIN.

Fernando

On 24/08/2022 11:04, Mike Burns wrote:

Opposed, I think the proposal contains errors that should be
fixed before the discussion proceeds.


For example this statement :

“In other RIRs, the leasing of addresses is not authorized
either and since it is not explicit in their policy manuals
either, this proposal will be presented as well.”


If it is not in their policy manuals, how can the proposers
state leasing is not authorized?

Where do the proposers think authority comes from, if not from
policy and contract?

Are they just assuming that all things are prohibited unless
they are explicitly allowed?

That would be an interesting way to read the policy manual, if
that is the belief, we should discuss that.


Beyond that there is the very next sentence:

” Nothing is currently mentioned in RIPE about this and it is
not acceptable as a justification of the need. “


Once again the bias is towards prohibition despite language
about leasing being absent from RIPE policy. More to the
point, and something that can’t be drummed-home clearly enough
to this community, RIPE has no needs test at all for transfers
and hasn’t for years.  And yet RIPE still exists and operates
as an RIR.  Even further to the point, in the one occasion
that RIPE performs a needs-test, which is on inter-regional
transfers from ARIN, leased-out addresses are in fact
acceptable as justification. That’s because

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not Intended

2022-09-10 Thread Fernando Frediani


Hello Bruce

There is not problem at all in these scenarios as resources can be 
easily transferred and there are policies for that already, therefore 
the mechanism already exist.


Fernando

On 10/09/2022 13:31, Bruce Cornett via ARIN-PPML wrote:


Hello

I see a potential problem where changes in corporate structure occur 
when shifting day to day operations to subsidiaries or sister 
corporations, leaving the block assignment with the original holder.


Bruce C

On Sep 9, 2022, at 9:44 AM, Fernando Frediani  
wrote:




Hello

There is no such error in the proposal.
This has been checked as being the interpretation staff gives to the 
current policy in most RIRs. APNIC is just an example that have 
confirmed it publicly a couples of days ago.
You may not find all the very specific words you may wish for in the 
text, but it is not much difficult for them to have such 
interpretation given the resources must follow a proper justification 
of what they will be used for and that can never be that you will use 
them for leasing (rent of lend). ARIN also already confirmed in this 
very same list they don't accept it as a justification.


There is no much around the term leasing. If an organization who 
don't provide any connectivity services to another simply rent or 
lend IP space, with or without a cost associated that is something 
that must not be since they no longer have a justification to keep 
that IP space and instead should either transfer it to those who 
really justify or return to ARIN.


Fernando

On 24/08/2022 11:04, Mike Burns wrote:


Opposed, I think the proposal contains errors that should be fixed 
before the discussion proceeds.


For example this statement :

“In other RIRs, the leasing of addresses is not authorized either 
and since it is not explicit in their policy manuals either, this 
proposal will be presented as well.”


If it is not in their policy manuals, how can the proposers state 
leasing is not authorized?


Where do the proposers think authority comes from, if not from 
policy and contract?


Are they just assuming that all things are prohibited unless they 
are explicitly allowed?


That would be an interesting way to read the policy manual, if that 
is the belief, we should discuss that.


Beyond that there is the very next sentence:

” Nothing is currently mentioned in RIPE about this and it is not 
acceptable as a justification of the need. “


Once again the bias is towards prohibition despite language about 
leasing being absent from RIPE policy. More to the point, and 
something that can’t be drummed-home clearly enough to this 
community, RIPE has no needs test at all for transfers and hasn’t 
for years.  And yet RIPE still exists and operates as an RIR.  Even 
further to the point, in the one occasion that RIPE performs a 
needs-test, which is on inter-regional transfers from ARIN, 
leased-out addresses are in fact acceptable as justification. That’s 
because of two logical things. First, RIPE understands that the 
inherent value of the addresses drives them towards efficient use. 
Second, RIPE understands that they are charged with getting 
addresses into use, not getting them into use on particular networks.


So the first two sentences in the “situation at other RIRs” are 
problematic/false.


Might I suggest fixing those before we move forward, and also can 
you please define the word leasing?


This seems poorly though-out to me, and I haven’t started on the 
meat of the proposal yet nor how it would be effectively policed and 
prohibited.


Regards,
Mike

*From:* ARIN-PPML  *On Behalf Of *ARIN
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 23, 2022 12:29 PM
*To:* PPML 
*Subject:* [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not Intended

On 18 August 2022, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted 
"ARIN-prop-308: Leasing Not Intended" as a Draft Policy.


Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9 is below and can be found at:

https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2022_9/

You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC 
will evaluate the discussion 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

Senior Policy Analyst

American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not Intended

Problem Statement:

“IPv6 Policy (section 6.4.1.) explicitly mention that address space 
is not a property. This is also stated in the RSA (section 7.) for 
all the Internet Number Resources.


However, with the spirit of the IPv4 allocation policies being the 
same, there is not an

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not Intended

2022-09-09 Thread Fernando Frediani


Hello

There is no such error in the proposal.
This has been checked as being the interpretation staff gives to the 
current policy in most RIRs. APNIC is just an example that have 
confirmed it publicly a couples of days ago.
You may not find all the very specific words you may wish for in the 
text, but it is not much difficult for them to have such interpretation 
given the resources must follow a proper justification of what they will 
be used for and that can never be that you will use them for leasing 
(rent of lend). ARIN also already confirmed in this very same list they 
don't accept it as a justification.


There is no much around the term leasing. If an organization who don't 
provide any connectivity services to another simply rent or lend IP 
space, with or without a cost associated that is something that must not 
be since they no longer have a justification to keep that IP space and 
instead should either transfer it to those who really justify or return 
to ARIN.


Fernando

On 24/08/2022 11:04, Mike Burns wrote:


Opposed, I think the proposal contains errors that should be fixed 
before the discussion proceeds.


For example this statement :

“In other RIRs, the leasing of addresses is not authorized either and 
since it is not explicit in their policy manuals either, this proposal 
will be presented as well.”


If it is not in their policy manuals, how can the proposers state 
leasing is not authorized?


Where do the proposers think authority comes from, if not from policy 
and contract?


Are they just assuming that all things are prohibited unless they are 
explicitly allowed?


That would be an interesting way to read the policy manual, if that is 
the belief, we should discuss that.


Beyond that there is the very next sentence:

” Nothing is currently mentioned in RIPE about this and it is not 
acceptable as a justification of the need. “


Once again the bias is towards prohibition despite language about 
leasing being absent from RIPE policy. More to the point, and 
something that can’t be drummed-home clearly enough to this community, 
RIPE has no needs test at all for transfers and hasn’t for years.  And 
yet RIPE still exists and operates as an RIR.  Even further to the 
point, in the one occasion that RIPE performs a needs-test, which is 
on inter-regional transfers from ARIN, leased-out addresses are in 
fact acceptable as justification. That’s because of two logical 
things. First, RIPE understands that the inherent value of the 
addresses drives them towards efficient use. Second, RIPE understands 
that they are charged with getting addresses into use, not getting 
them into use on particular networks.


So the first two sentences in the “situation at other RIRs” are 
problematic/false.


Might I suggest fixing those before we move forward, and also can you 
please define the word leasing?


This seems poorly though-out to me, and I haven’t started on the meat 
of the proposal yet nor how it would be effectively policed and 
prohibited.


Regards,
Mike

*From:* ARIN-PPML  *On Behalf Of *ARIN
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 23, 2022 12:29 PM
*To:* PPML 
*Subject:* [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not Intended

On 18 August 2022, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted 
"ARIN-prop-308: Leasing Not Intended" as a Draft Policy.


Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9 is below and can be found at:

https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2022_9/

You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will 
evaluate the discussion 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

Senior Policy Analyst

American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not Intended

Problem Statement:

“IPv6 Policy (section 6.4.1.) explicitly mention that address space is 
not a property. This is also stated in the RSA (section 7.) for all 
the Internet Number Resources.


However, with the spirit of the IPv4 allocation policies being the 
same, there is not an equivalent text for IPv4, neither for ASNs.


Further to that, policies for IPv4 and IPv6 allocations, clearly state 
that allocations are based on justified need and not solely on a 
predicted customer base. Similar text can be found in the section 
related to Transfers (8.1).


Consequently, resources not only aren’t a property, but also, aren’t 
allocated for leasing purposes, only for justified need of the 
resource holder and its directly connected customers.


Therefore, and so that there are no doubts about it, it should be made

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not Intended

2022-09-09 Thread Fernando Frediani

Hi Scott, what Internet operation exists there is no connectivity 
provided by the resource holder to a customer ?


Unfortunately that's not quiet correct your assertion that simply ARIN 
should only care whether addresses are in use on a operation network or 
not. Above all they should care if resources are being utilized 
according to the current policy and the need they were justified for.
If an organization who doesn't provide any connectivity services to 
another and simply leases (rent or lend) address to be used for this 
second one creates security issues, given that,*in the absence of 
connectivity the member receiving the license to use the addresses does 
not have immediate physical control to manage or filter these resources, 
something that could potentially result in damages to the entire community.


Fernando

On 24/08/2022 14:26, Scott Leibrand wrote:
No, this draft policy is not merely a clarification. This would a 
significant change in policy, and if enforced would significantly 
interfere with the efficient operation of the Internet.


ARIN should only care whether addresses are in use on an operational 
network. They have no reason to care about the connectivity, or lack 
thereof, between an LIR and operational networks that it reallocates 
or reassigns space to.


I run an operational network. We still use a number of address blocks 
originally allocated to us by our transit providers before we acquired 
our own space, which we have always announced in BGP in a multihomed 
fashion. If we stop announcing the route to the transit provider who 
announced us the space, whether temporarily (due to an outage or 
maintenance) or more permanently (because we no longer need transit 
from them there), we should be able to continue using our assigned 
space as long as we have appropriate contractual arrangements in place 
to do so. That is a form of "leasing" that has always been allowed, 
and this policy would disallow it.


Any policy requiring a certain form of connectivity between an LIR and 
its customers will either be unenforceable and easily gamed, or 
onerous, bureaucratic, and will interfere with the legitimate 
operation of networks efficiently utilizing their IPv4 space.


-Scott

On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 9:32 AM Fernando Frediani 
 wrote:


Hello Scott

Could you explain better the arguments you are against in this
proposal or that don't sound valid?

All this proposal does is to make clear make something clear in
the policy text.
If you cannot go to ARIN and justify that you intend to use
requested IP addresses for simple leasing proposes, to be leased
to organization with who you don't provide any connectivity
services, why would it be an accepted thing in any other scenario ?
IP space is to be used for building Internet infrastructure and to
get customers connected to the Internet, not to be simply leased
from one organization pretending to be a RIR to another.

Unless I misunderstood and you like the idea of leasing and so why
you oppose this proposal.

Regards
Fernando

On 24/08/2022 12:40, Scott Leibrand wrote:

Opposed. There is no good reason I am aware of for ARIN to
require the bundling of IP addressing and connectivity services.
The arguments provided in this draft policy are not sound or
valid ones.

Scott


On Aug 23, 2022, at 9:28 AM, ARIN 
<mailto:i...@arin.net> wrote:



On 18 August 2022, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
"ARIN-prop-308: Leasing Not Intended" as a Draft Policy.

Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9 is below and can be found at:

https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2022_9/

You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC
will evaluate the discussion 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

Senior Policy Analyst

American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not Intended

Problem Statement:

“IPv6 Policy (section 6.4.1.) explicitly mention that address
space is not a property. This is also stated in the RSA (section
7.) for all the Internet Number Resources.

However, with the spirit of the IPv4 allocation policies being
the same, there is not an equivalent text for IPv4, neither for
ASNs.

Further to that, policies for IPv4 and IPv6 allocations, clearly
state that allocations a

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not Intended

2022-08-24 Thread Fernando Frediani


Hello Scott

Could you explain better the arguments you are against in this proposal 
or that don't sound valid?


All this proposal does is to make clear make something clear in the 
policy text.
If you cannot go to ARIN and justify that you intend to use requested IP 
addresses for simple leasing proposes, to be leased to organization with 
who you don't provide any connectivity services, why would it be an 
accepted thing in any other scenario ?
IP space is to be used for building Internet infrastructure and to get 
customers connected to the Internet, not to be simply leased from one 
organization pretending to be a RIR to another.


Unless I misunderstood and you like the idea of leasing and so why you 
oppose this proposal.


Regards
Fernando

On 24/08/2022 12:40, Scott Leibrand wrote:
Opposed. There is no good reason I am aware of for ARIN to require the 
bundling of IP addressing and connectivity services. The arguments 
provided in this draft policy are not sound or valid ones.


Scott


On Aug 23, 2022, at 9:28 AM, ARIN  wrote:



On 18 August 2022, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted 
"ARIN-prop-308: Leasing Not Intended" as a Draft Policy.


Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9 is below and can be found at:

https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2022_9/

You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will 
evaluate the discussion 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

Senior Policy Analyst

American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not Intended

Problem Statement:

“IPv6 Policy (section 6.4.1.) explicitly mention that address space 
is not a property. This is also stated in the RSA (section 7.) for 
all the Internet Number Resources.


However, with the spirit of the IPv4 allocation policies being the 
same, there is not an equivalent text for IPv4, neither for ASNs.


Further to that, policies for IPv4 and IPv6 allocations, clearly 
state that allocations are based on justified need and not solely on 
a predicted customer base. Similar text can be found in the section 
related to Transfers (8.1).


Consequently, resources not only aren’t a property, but also, aren’t 
allocated for leasing purposes, only for justified need of the 
resource holder and its directly connected customers.


Therefore, and so that there are no doubts about it, it should be 
made explicit in the NRPM that the Internet Resources should not be 
leased “per se”, but only as part of a direct connectivity service. 
At the same time, section 6.4.1. should be moved to the top of the 
NRPM (possibly to section 1. “Principles and Goals of the American 
Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)”.”


Policy statement:

Actual Text (to be replaced by New Text):

6.4.1. Address Space Not to be Considered Property

It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the 
interests of the Internet community as a whole for address space to 
be considered freehold property.


The policies in this document are based upon the understanding that 
globally-unique IPv6 unicast address space is allocated/assigned for 
use rather than owned.


New Text

1.5. Internet Number Resources Not to be Considered Property

It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the 
interests of the Internet community as a whole for address space to 
be considered freehold property.


The policies in this document are based upon the understanding that 
Internet Number Resources are allocated/assigned for use rather than 
owned.


ARIN allocate and assign Internet resources in a delegation scheme, 
with an annual validity, renewable as long as the requirements 
specified by the policies in force at the time of renewal are met, 
and especially the justification of the need.


Therefore, the resources can’t be considered property.

The justification of the need, generically in the case of addresses, 
implies their need to directly connect customers. Therefore, the 
leasing of addresses is not considered acceptable, nor does it 
justify the need, if they are not part of a set of services based, at 
least, on direct connectivity.


Even in cases of networks not connected to the Internet, the leasing 
of addresses is not admissible, since said sites can request direct 
assignments from ARIN and even in the case of IPv4, use private 
addresses or arrange transfers.


Timetable for implementation: Immediate

Situation in other Regions:

In other RIRs, the leasing of addresses is not authorized either and 
since it is not

Re: [arin-ppml] Potentially black listed space

2022-08-11 Thread Fernando Frediani


Hello

I think this is something unnecessary.
It is good that ARIN is careful about making sure reissued space is not 
routed or present in blocklists before assigning it to a new holder, but 
should not be obligatory, specially in times of IPv4 exhaustion.
Between assigning something to an organization that requires it to exist 
in the Internet and not assigning at all, some may choose to receive the 
space and deal with the issue afterwards.


The reason a block may be in a blacklist is out of the control of ARIN 
and it should reduce the capacity to do its duties which is assign space 
to organizations because of a 3rd party problem that it is not their 
duty to resolve. Therefore leave it without it and perhaps at maximum 
have a minimum time hold time.


Fernando Frediani


PS: It seems to be a hell the existence of these type of blacklists that 
don't look to have any criteria to add or removed addresses, ending up 
some space to stay there indefinitively. There may be blacklists to be 
used for blackhole or similar proposes, but be restricted to a DDoS 
mitigation scenario, not to have addresses permanently banned.
If there are serious issues regarding IP space being used for criminal 
activities this should be seriously treated via the appropriate abuse 
contacts and at the worst case scenario be brought to the attention to 
the RIR and be considered IP space missusage. I don't think anyone can 
defend in such cases that the RIR should not have anything to do with 
the way that IP space is used.


Last and not less important there are blacklist that are targeted to be 
used only for spam combat and in such cases there is absolutely no 
issues with having certain IP space present there. I have seen cases 
where people confuse things and believe those lists are to be applied 
for any type of Internet traffic.



On 11/08/2022 15:21, WOOD Alison * DAS wrote:


Good afternoon PPML:

It has been brought to the attention of the Policy Experience Working 
Group that in rare circumstances it is possible that Internet 
resources re-issued from revoked RSA space may have been on a block 
list or currently routed.  The ARIN staff  is very careful to make 
sure that any reissued space is not routed so as to cause some unaware 
3rd party problems with their business as well as the new holder. 
 ARIN also aims to avoid providing space that appears on block lists 
and is diligent in researching these issues.


As a community, would you like to see clarification in section 4.1.8, 
stating something like:  Space revoked per the RSA has had no 
substantial routing table usage since revocation and has met a six 
month hold time?


Thanks!

-Alison


___
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 contacti...@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] Deceased Companies

2022-08-08 Thread Fernando Frediani


On 08/08/2022 22:24, Jay Hennigan wrote:


So no, you are NOT correct.  It IS ARIN's business what you are doing 
with your large legacy block.


If you haven't signed an LRSA, how is it any of ARIN's business what 
you do with your legacy block?

It has been already explained here.
If community chooses to have a policy in that sense to deal with these 
resources a signed contract or not is irrelevant.


Bottom line is it doesn't matter the reason, these blocks should not be 
held idle just because someone decades ago received them. Addresses are 
to connect people to the Internet, not to be help idle another decade 
just because some organizations have some weird strategy to keep them 
that way damaging the capacity to have more people connected.


By the way, it is common people don't like to have to any kind of 
questions or to have to give any explanations, but for standard blocks 
it is always of of ARIN or any RIR business how they blocks are used.
Blocks were once assigned and justified on a need basis and according to 
certain rules. If these blocks are found to be used for proposes that 
are contrary to those rules at the best scenario the resource holder has 
to give enough explanations in order to keep them otherwise they may be 
revoked.


Fernando



___
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-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilizatio

2022-08-08 Thread Fernando Frediani


On 08/08/2022 17:48, John Santos wrote:
I found the policy and original problem statement confusing because 
the verb "lease" is ambiguous.  It can refer to leasing something FROM 
someone else or to leasing something TO someone else.


I read the problem statement as describing a situation where someone 
has some amount of IP space allocated to them but has an operational 
need for more space.  They are leasing additional space from a third 
party as a temporary measure, but would like to increase their 
allocation to cover their actual needs, but ARIN wasn't letting them 
use that leased space as evidence of need. (Maybe this isn't actually 
an issue and any organization in such a situation would easily meet 
the needs requirements?)  But if this is the situation the policy is 
attempting to address and it is a real problem, I would support the 
proposal.


However, it appears this policy is addressing the other situation, an 
organization already has more space than it needs and is leasing out 
their extra space to third parties.  (The key word here is 
"leased-out".)  I don't see how allowing them to obtain additional 
space in any way qualifies as "needs based".  They already have more 
than they need, or they wouldn't be leasing it out.


+1 for the same reasons stated. Doesn't make sense to allow this. Opposed.

Regards
Fernando



Opposed.


On 8/8/2022 3:11 PM, Andrew Dul wrote:
ARIN Draft Policy 2021-6 was retitled earlier this year as “Permit 
IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for 
Future Allocations” and the text was also updated based upon feedback 
from the community at the Fall 2021 meeting.


https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2021_6/

The draft did not receive sufficient support in the shepherds opinion 
to move this policy toward a recommended draft policy. Since this 
time the shepherds have been discussing with various members of the 
Internet Community and the ARIN AC on a possible path forward for 
this draft policy.


One of the ideas was to take a look at the problem statement and 
perhaps update and clarify the problem statement in hopes that this 
process would provide additional ideas to move the process forward.


The current draft policy problem statement is as follows:

Problem Statement: Current ARIN policy prevents the use of leased-out 
addresses as evidence of utilization.


Some contributors have suggested that there are perhaps two or more 
issues that are attempting to be solved here.


 Organizations would like the ability to lease some of their 
address space and not limit the receipt of future IPv4 transfers due 
the fact that ARIN’s evaluation of utilization considers leased space 
today to be unused.


 Organizations who wish to obtain address space are not able to 
pledge the address space as collateral in a financial transaction.  
The RSA and ARIN policy today limit the ability of IPv4 address 
resources to be transferred to another party (financier) without that 
party showing need for use on an operational network.



We invite your feedback on these thoughts and ideas to help us rework 
the problem statement and future policy language solving these issues.


In particular, do you believe the problem statement needs to be 
rewritten to clarify the issue the Internet Community is trying to 
solve here?


If so, what problem or problems do you believe that the Internet 
Community needs to solve and what problem statement(s) make sense to 
restart the conversation around this topic?


Thanks in advance for your feedback,

Andrew

___
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] Deceased Companies

2022-08-08 Thread Fernando Frediani

Yes agree it is not possible, but in real practice world it is not 
reasonable someone with such a large chunk IPv4 address at this stage 
keep using them for internal proposes, although I hardly believe that is 
the case. The reasons may be other which I don't want to speculate here 
as I have don't evidence.
Also it is correct ARIN community never developed a policy in that way, 
but when that was discussed in the past maybe the scenario was 
significantly different and now a days there are growing issue due to 
IPv4 exhaustion to everybody and the feeling I have is that there are 
still large holders with idle resources for years keeping them for 
nothing. In my view that is not a reasonable thing for the entire 
Internet community. What good does it to do Internet for now or even in 
long term ?


Whatever the reason is they should not remain idle and at this stage and 
keep accepting the 'acquired rights' to leave things as they are does 
not good to the Internet community.
I recognize it is not easy discussion to have here or even a policy to 
reach consensus, but as mentioned in the email thread the community 
still holds that right.


Regarding justifications I still find it hard for a entire organization 
or even a worldwide company that is not from the telecommunications or 
hosting sector to be able to justify the need for over 16 milling 
individual IPv4 addresses, even if they assigned an individual address 
to each Desktop of they employees.


Fernando

Em 08/08/2022 08:50, John Curran escreveu:


On 7 Aug 2022, at 11:11 PM, Fernando Frediani  
wrote:


It is positive that many of these legacy holder returned some of 
their unneeded IPv4 resources in the past. However I personally 
believe it is something negative that there is still a fair amount of 
these addresses unused and not even announced to the DFZ as if they 
were waiting for some big Internet event to happen.


It is not possible to infer that resources are unused simply from the 
fact that they are “not announced to DFZ”...


I really don't mind Legacy Holders to keep addresses that were 
assigned to them ages ago as long they have a justification for using 
them.


The ARIN community has never developed or adopted any policy to the 
effect that legacy resources
holders must justify their resources in order to keep them, so this 
should not be a matter of concern.


In the other hand I am unable to believe any organization in the 
entire world that is not a Telecommunications or a Hosting Company is 
able to technically justify more and a single /8.


I will note that very large organizations have networking needs that 
rival or even exceed that of many

telecommunications firms.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers


___
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] Deceased Companies

2022-08-07 Thread Fernando Frediani

It is positive that many of these legacy holder returned some of their 
unneeded IPv4 resources in the past. However I personally believe it is 
something negative that there is still a fair amount of these addresses 
unused and not even announced to the DFZ as if they were waiting for 
some big Internet event to happen.


I really don't mind Legacy Holders to keep addresses that were assigned 
to them ages ago as long they have a justification for using them. In 
the other hand I am unable to believe any organization in the entire 
world that is not a Telecommunications or a Hosting Company is able to 
technically justify more and a single /8.


Fernando

On 07/08/2022 15:06, John Curran wrote:



On 6 Aug 2022, at 10:00 PM, Steven Ryerse 
 wrote:

...
If this community wants more resources, the more obvious place to 
find them isn't some relatively small block held by an organization 
or individual that might be deceased, this community could try and 
convince the DoD to release some portion of their very large /8 
assignments.  That could be fertile ground.  Who knows how many IPv4 
addresses they are actually using and need.


I've never heard of it happening but it wouldn't surprise me if ARIN 
has quietly discussed this possibility with the DoD as some point.

We wouldn't hear about it unless resources were actually released.


Already happened (more than a decade ago): the US DoD, BBN, Stanford, 
Interop, etc. all returned some of their unneeded IPv4 resources after 
being approached by ARIN – the address space was returned, held for a 
period, and then issued by the policies in place at that time.


Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers




___
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 contacti...@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] Deceased Companies?

2022-08-05 Thread Fernando Frediani

On Fri, 5 Aug 2022, 13:20 John Curran,  wrote:

>
> 
> Alas, there’s very little evidence that legacy resource holders (being
> parties that lack any
> written agreement with ARIN) have any magical ability or right that would
> preclude ARIN
> operating its registry exactly as directed by community policy (including
> entries held by
> legacy resource holders), but I recognize there are some who may feel
> otherwise.
>
> ARIN actually have zero reluctance when it comes to defending the
> community’s right to
> establish apply policies applicable to the entire registry, and we do
> quite vigorously defend
> the same in court without hesitation.
>
> (Any reticence you see regarding the establishment of new policy
> requirements applicable to
> legacy resource holders is simply driven out of the desire to be
> respectful to all parties with
> resources in the registry and desire that any such policy changes be based
> out of a clearly
> articulated policy need of this community.  We have done many such changes
> in the past that
> are applicable to the entire registry including legacy resource holders –
> this includes addition
> of the abuse contact, number resource resource review section, POC
> validation, etc.)
>

Well done for putting this loud and clear John.

I appreciate to read these type of statements and hope that all people in
charge of all other RIRs think and do in the exact same way with strengh
and always recognize the importance and protagonism of the comunity in the
role of developing policies, reaching consensus on them and having that
applied in practice.

Fernando

>
> ...
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Deceased Companies?

2022-07-25 Thread Fernando Frediani


Thank you very much for the clarification John.

It is good to know that there has been a policy in the past for that to 
happen and that BoT has understood that although ARIN could be successor 
of  SRI/GSI/NSI-InterNIC it would not make sense in the current or even 
past context at that point in time these resources to be retained by ARIN.


One point to highlight is that the communication mentions "blocks that 
have been voluntarily returned to ARIN" which could be understood as 
basically any legacy blocks had necessarily to be returned to ARIN and 
that IANA agrees on that or if a given legacy resource holder wishes to 
return it directly to IANA would it be forbidden and directed by IANA to 
do to ARIN ?


Fernando

Em 25/07/2022 12:37, John Curran escreveu:


On 25 Jul 2022, at 11:02 AM, Fernando Frediani  
wrote:


Em 25/07/2022 11:34, John Curran escreveu:


I have seen administratively and voluntarily dissolved corporations 
come

back to life, so ARIN must consider this.
Exactly… It turns out that dissolved isn’t necessarily a permanent 
state, and in addition
“dissolved” doesn’t mean that the rights necessarily and 
automatically revert to the ARIN
community – there may be one or more parties that has potential 
claim to the resources,

either via bankruptcy or provisions of the corporate wind down.


Question here John: if the resources are legacy and they were 
assigned before ARIN existence, these resources should ideally be 
reverted back to IANA which in turn should apply the Post Exhaustion 
Global Policy from May 6th 2021 and re-distribute these blocks to all 
RIRs ?


Incorrect - ARIN is the successor registry for these assignments made 
by SRI/GSI/NSI-InterNIC

and so they are returned to ARIN.

To the extent determined by ARIN policy and ARIN’s Board of Trustees, 
number resources that
are revoked, returned, or reclaimed by ARIN may be returned to the 
IANA and then would qualify
as "Any IPv4 space returned to the IANA by any means” as stated the 
referenced global policy.


This has occurred in the past - 
https://www.arin.net/vault/announcements/2012/20120611.html

(see extract below)

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers



  ARIN Returns Some IPv4 Address Space to IANA

*Posted: Monday, 11 June 2012*

Given the recent ICANN Board adoption of Global Policy Proposal - 
IPv4–2011, the ARIN Board of Trustees at its 6 June meeting directed 
ARIN staff to return to the IANA the IPv4 address blocks that have 
been voluntarily returned to ARIN in recent years. The total amount 
of space being returned to the IANA amounts to roughly a /8 
equivalent and includes the large block of IPv4 addresses returned to 
ARIN by Interop in 2010.


Below is the final list of address space that has been returned to 
the IANA and this will be reflected in ARIN's database within the 
next few hours.


  * 45.2.0.0/15
  * 45.4.0.0/14
  * 45.8.0.0/13

...
___
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] Deceased Companies?

2022-07-25 Thread Fernando Frediani


Em 25/07/2022 11:34, John Curran escreveu:



I have seen administratively and voluntarily dissolved corporations come
back to life, so ARIN must consider this.

Exactly… It turns out that dissolved isn’t necessarily a permanent state, and 
in addition
“dissolved” doesn’t mean that the rights necessarily and automatically revert 
to the ARIN
community – there may be one or more parties that has potential claim to the 
resources,
either via bankruptcy or provisions of the corporate wind down.


Question here John: if the resources are legacy and they were assigned 
before ARIN existence, these resources should ideally be reverted back 
to IANA which in turn should apply the Post Exhaustion Global Policy 
from May 6th 2021 and re-distribute these blocks to all RIRs ?


I guess it would only be valid these resources go directly into ARIN 
records in the event of the rightful and still valid resource holder of 
the resources state it wishes to transfer these resources to another 
ARIN member directly, otherwise they should go to IANA isn't it ?


Fernando





___
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] Thanks! - and a couple of reminders... (was: Re: CEO that takes the time to answer all questions)

2022-07-24 Thread Fernando Frediani


Sure John, I always seek to do.

However these type of things have to be questioned publicly.
I don't really agree that most things should be a topic for arin-discuss 
really. Many will, but not all that is not necessarily linked to a 
specific proposal. Just a few examples can be: how this own mail-list 
works, how the AC is structured, ideas of possible policy proposals to 
be presented here, etc


I hope whenever a possible change gets to be discussed, if that´s the 
community feeling, it doesn't get blocked because a few people from ARIN 
think otherwise.


Regards
Fernando

On 24/07/2022 17:36, John Curran wrote:

Fernando -

Discussion of “facts that happen in other RIRs or general Internet 
Governance” topics is simply wonderful in concept,
but it is not inevitable that such discussion is intermingled with 
consideration of specific policy ideas and proposals –
for example, such general topics could be discussed on a more general 
purpose "arin-discuss” mailing list.


In the meantime, the charter of the ARIN-PPML mailing list remains 
as-is, and please adhere to it in your postings


Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers


On 24 Jul 2022, at 3:26 PM, Fernando Frediani  
wrote:


Hello

This doesn't look nice, either the way it is written or the way it is 
understood by ARIN.
Policy-related ideas and issues can mean a lot of things, including 
facts that happen in other RIRs or general Internet Governance area 
that can impact that was people discuss and agree on policies here. 
This is fundamental to make up peoples mind when putting their 
reasons for supporting or not a proposal.


I can understand ARIN possible concerns in order to avoid turning 
this email list in a general discuss list that could end up putting 
away truly interested people, but in the other hand it is necessary 
to be flexible enough to not close abruptly any discussions that are 
raised here and that is not necessarily attached to a given proposal 
or draft and be able to separate the different type of discussions 
which we know is not an easy thing


The text as it is looks fine for me, but if ARIN still chooses to not 
interpret in a different and more flexible way I would be happy to 
support whatever necessary changes to make it in such way.


Thanks for the clarification around this topic
Regards
Fernando

On 19/07/2022 15:30, John Curran wrote:


On 19 Jul 2022, at 2:07 PM, Fernando Frediani 
 wrote:


Hi John

Thanks for the response back to community.
But let take easier this thing about discussions on ARIN PPML 
mailing list. I know some people may not like of find it strange 
discussions that are not necessarily and exactly around a given 
proposal but it is not necessary to be like that.


Basically anything that has to do with ARIN PPML being a proposal 
or not it is fair to be discussed here, including how the CEO of 
ARIN interacts with its community and clarify all necessary 
information. That´s undoubtedly is of high importance and other 
topics that may affect in some way the discussions here and how 
community makes up their minds to support or not a proposal. …



Fernando -

That’s not quite correct, as the scope of the arin-ppml mailing list 
is quite clear, and postings must be more than simply tangentially 
related to ARIN policy.


As provided per 
<https://www.arin.net/participate/community/mailing_lists/#public-policy-mailing-list> 
–


Open to the general public. Provides a forum to raise and
discuss policy-related ideas and issues surrounding existing and
proposed ARIN policies. The PPML list is an intrinsic part of
ARIN’s Policy Development Process
<https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/>, which details
how proposed policies are handled.

Discussion on PPML can cover a variety of policy related topics,
and ARIN encourages free discussion. ARIN announcements to the
PPML about policy proposals or draft policies include the
proposal number or draft policy number in the subject field.
Please retain the policy number in the subject line when you
make comments about specific proposals or draft policies
<https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/>. Your post or
reply should open with a statement of support or nonsupport for
the topic to allow others to follow discussions of interest more
easily and make your position clear.

If you want a more open forum for discussion of overall issues 
related to ARIN (i.e. more than just topics that are  “policy 
related ideas and issues”), I would suggest that you support that 
position in the open consultation I referenced previously.


Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers



___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or m

Re: [arin-ppml] Thanks! - and a couple of reminders... (was: Re: CEO that takes the time to answer all questions)

2022-07-24 Thread Fernando Frediani


Hello

This doesn't look nice, either the way it is written or the way it is 
understood by ARIN.
Policy-related ideas and issues can mean a lot of things, including 
facts that happen in other RIRs or general Internet Governance area that 
can impact that was people discuss and agree on policies here. This is 
fundamental to make up peoples mind when putting their reasons for 
supporting or not a proposal.


I can understand ARIN possible concerns in order to avoid turning this 
email list in a general discuss list that could end up putting away 
truly interested people, but in the other hand it is necessary to be 
flexible enough to not close abruptly any discussions that are raised 
here and that is not necessarily attached to a given proposal or draft 
and be able to separate the different type of discussions which we know 
is not an easy thing


The text as it is looks fine for me, but if ARIN still chooses to not 
interpret in a different and more flexible way I would be happy to 
support whatever necessary changes to make it in such way.


Thanks for the clarification around this topic
Regards
Fernando

On 19/07/2022 15:30, John Curran wrote:


On 19 Jul 2022, at 2:07 PM, Fernando Frediani  
wrote:


Hi John

Thanks for the response back to community.
But let take easier this thing about discussions on ARIN PPML mailing 
list. I know some people may not like of find it strange discussions 
that are not necessarily and exactly around a given proposal but it 
is not necessary to be like that.


Basically anything that has to do with ARIN PPML being a proposal or 
not it is fair to be discussed here, including how the CEO of ARIN 
interacts with its community and clarify all necessary information. 
That´s undoubtedly is of high importance and other topics that may 
affect in some way the discussions here and how community makes up 
their minds to support or not a proposal. …



Fernando -

That’s not quite correct, as the scope of the arin-ppml mailing list 
is quite clear, and postings must be more than simply tangentially 
related to ARIN policy.


As provided per 
<https://www.arin.net/participate/community/mailing_lists/#public-policy-mailing-list> 
–


Open to the general public. Provides a forum to raise and discuss
policy-related ideas and issues surrounding existing and proposed
ARIN policies. The PPML list is an intrinsic part of ARIN’s Policy
Development Process
<https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/>, which details how
proposed policies are handled.

Discussion on PPML can cover a variety of policy related topics,
and ARIN encourages free discussion. ARIN announcements to the
PPML about policy proposals or draft policies include the proposal
number or draft policy number in the subject field. Please retain
the policy number in the subject line when you make comments about
specific proposals or draft policies
<https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/>. Your post or
reply should open with a statement of support or nonsupport for
the topic to allow others to follow discussions of interest more
easily and make your position clear.

If you want a more open forum for discussion of overall issues related 
to ARIN (i.e. more than just topics that are  “policy related ideas 
and issues”), I would suggest that you support that position in the 
open consultation I referenced previously.


Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

___
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] Thanks! - and a couple of reminders... (was: Re: CEO that takes the time to answer all questions)

2022-07-19 Thread Fernando Frediani


Hi John

Thanks for the response back to community.
But let take easier this thing about discussions on ARIN PPML mailing 
list. I know some people may not like of find it strange discussions 
that are not necessarily and exactly around a given proposal but it is 
not necessary to be like that.


Basically anything that has to do with ARIN PPML being a proposal or not 
it is fair to be discussed here, including how the CEO of ARIN interacts 
with its community and clarify all necessary information. That´s 
undoubtedly is of high importance and other topics that may affect in 
some way the discussions here and how community makes up their minds to 
support or not a proposal.


Well done.
Fernando

Em 19/07/2022 14:56, John Curran escreveu:

Folks -

Let’s see if I can do three things at once here: 



1)  Your approval of my communication style is most appreciated –
I work for all of you (collectively) and simply I find the job
easier with frank and open communications. 



2)  As a gentle reminder, arin-ppml is the mailing list for
discussion ARIN number resource policy matters, and so let’s try
to get back to that topic soon…


3)  If you think that it might be nice to have a more open forum
for community discussion of overall issues related to ARIN [such
as this one] without seeing ongoing reminders from me about
staying on the mailing list’s purpose, and/or if you are thinking
that might be really bad idea to have a most open discussion list,
I note that either way there is presently a consultation open on
that very question that closes in just a few days and has had very
little community input to date –
https://www.arin.net/announcements/20220621-consultopen/


Again, thanks for your kind words and support!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

On 19 Jul 2022, at 1:28 PM, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML 
 wrote:


Yes… It’s been my experience that several RIR CEOs have done so and I 
think it is a model that the others should emulate.


John Curran
Paul Wilson
Axel Pawlik
Alan Barrett

It’s also been my experience that the ARIN board, RIPE board, and the 
members of the APNIC EC are extremely accessible to the community and 
very open and
transparent about the actions of their respective bodies. I don’t 
mention LACNIC only because I don’t have sufficient experience 
interacting with them to comment.


The remaining board not mentioned here could learn a lot from the 
examples set by the three I did mention.


Owen



On Jul 18, 2022, at 23:51 , Noah  wrote:


On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 9:12 AM Hank Nussbacher via ARIN-PPML 
 wrote:


On 18/07/2022 17:41, John Curran wrote:

I have almost nothing to do with ARIN but I would just like to
say kudos
to John for taking the time to answer *every* single question
and issue
raised by anyone and everyone.  Not many CEOs even answer 1-2
emails.


I would also like to echo the same sentiment as Hank... it's 
refreshing to see how John engages with this ARIN community.


Cheers
Noah
___
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 contacti...@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] Reclamation of Number Resources

2022-07-15 Thread Fernando Frediani


On 15/07/2022 11:04, John Curran wrote:

 


Hopefully this works out well and any type of information brought to 
any RIR in such manner gets investigated and in the worst case 
scenario resources get revoked as they should.


No – parties that wish to bring information necessitating a review of 
a resource request should use the described reporting process, as ARIN 
will not act off allegations of this nature made on ARIN-ppml nor are 
such allegations conformant with the purpose of this mailing list.
Sure John. Whenever I have a case myself I would be glad to report via 
this informed process.


Just a quick clarification: in such situations does the investigated 
member gets to know or have the right ti know who reported it or is it 
something that doesn't really matter for the context and ARIN preserves 
the source of information ?


Best regards
Fernando



Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers


___
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] Reclamation of Number Resources

2022-07-15 Thread Fernando Frediani


Although I rarely agree with Owen views I have to say I do in this case.

The situation seems simpler than it look like. It is healthy that 
investigations in such cases as conducted independent of too much 
formalities.
I have already done similar thing in another situation in another RIR 
and they did investigate further and came to some conclusion about 
fraud. This doesn't mean a hunt for the applicant but the most important 
thing to prevail is if there was a fraud or a mistake or not at some 
point and if there was everybody is loosing, therefore it needs to be fixed.


Hopefully this works out well and any type of information brought to any 
RIR in such manner gets investigated and in the worst case scenario 
resources get revoked as they should.


Best regards
Fernando

On 15/07/2022 05:53, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote:

What Ronald is doing is accusing ARIN of *not* going after people
he suspects aren't following the law, without submitting any actual
evidence to support the accusation.


No, Ronald is pointing out that ARIN doesn’t have a mechanism to 
encourage ARIN to investigate whether or not ARIN missed something or 
made an incorrect assumption in processing an application other than 
by accusing the applicant of fraud. Ronald isn’t willing to accuse the 
applicant as he doesn’t have evidence of fraud. He is, instead, 
suggesting that he believes ARIN staff erred in issuing the resources 
and attempting through means other than accusing the applicant of 
fraud (note: fraud is a crime of intent, it requires an intent to 
deceive as well as a gain from the deception, mere ignorance isn’t 
sufficient).


I think Ronald has provided enough evidence for ARIN to investigate 
its own behavior here, which is what Ronald has requested.


I agree that we shouldn’t be conducting a witch hunt against the 
applicant unless there is some evidence that the applicant 
deliberately defrauded ARIN in their application process.


Ronald has clearly stated he has no such evidence or belief and that 
he believes simply that ARIN erred. I do think it is not unreasonable 
for ARIN to investigate and determine whether it erred or not.


Owen



This is McCarthyism resurrected.

" “I have here in my hand a list of 205 [State Department employees] 
that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the 
Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping 
the policy of the State Department.”


We should not stoop to witch hunt allegations without any supporting
evidence being offered.  Ronald indicated he couldn't find evidence of
fraud, and thus wasn't willing to file a fraud report.  He simply 
said he
couldn't find evidence that the accused networks and individuals 
*weren't*

committing fraud, and that it was up to ARIN to demonstrate they weren't
complicit in covering up for the entity. In essence, he's demanding that
ARIN show the world how they go about determining that every company
that has ever applied for number resources is *not guilty* of fraud.

We should *never* put the burden of proving innocence on the victim.

The burden of proof of guilt should be on the accuser's side to produce.

When accusations of fraud are submitted, yes, it's worthy and reasonable
for ARIN to report on the outcome.

But for Ronald to demand that ARIN reveal the details of how ARIN went
about deciding that every company that ever applied for number resources
was *NOT* breaking the law is a witch hunt.  It is a demand to 
produce proof
of innocence rather than acting on accusation of guilt with evidence 
to back

up the assertion.

Just as it is not the job of the police to check on what each and 
every one of
us is doing in our households to make sure we're innocent of all 
crime, it is not
ARIN's job to ensure every company that ever applied for number 
resources
is completely innocent of all crime.  If there is an accusation of 
fraud, they should
act on it and investigate it thoroughly. But absent that, if no 
evidence of fraudulent
behaviour is reported, it should not be incumbent on ARIN staff to 
justify why they
have not taken action against every company that ever submitted a 
request to

them.

I for one do not wish to turn the ARIN region into that level of 
totalitarian regime.


When Ronald finds evidence of fraud, he should report it, and ARIN 
should

investigate it, and report accordingly if fraud is found.

But to fire broad-based accusations against the ARIN membership and 
against

ARIN staff without proof is a bridge too far:

"  *)  How many more memberships are currently sitting on ARIN's 
books that,

      as in this case, obviously should never have been there, and what
      effort, if any, will ARIN now expend to find them and to terminate
      the memberships involved?"

If it's obvious (ie, there is proof of fraud), then why is Ronald 
unwilling to

file a complaint against the networks in question?

He himself admits he can find no evidence of fraud:

"I cannot, in

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN public participation

2022-06-10 Thread Fernando Frediani

Folks, I think everybody agrees that anything here that becomes personal 
should not be carried out, but it is important also to understand that 
discussions related to Number Resource Policy may or may not necessarily 
be of linked to an specific proposal, and in the cases it is not it is 
still fine as long the discussion is related to how the Policy 
Development Process works and how can it possibility be affected by 
external events.
AfriNic trouble has been just an great example how economic interests 
may try to force things to malfunction in the benefit of a few actors 
and we all here that discuss proposals with the aim to have consensus on 
them should be able to have easy access to these kind of episodes and 
take that into account as well.  It is all related to the same ecosystem 
and to me it is not very difficult to differentiate the things.


Policy Development Process is a Internet Governance topic that concerns 
not only members but Community in general.
I hope we are able collectively to separate things and focus what really 
matters.

Regards
Fernando

On 10/06/2022 20:04, William Herrin wrote:

On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 3:56 PM John Curran  wrote:

This leaves you with a fairly straightforward choice:

- Again, if you believe that there is a matter for which ARIN might have to 
take action, then then become a member and discuss it with the other members.

- if you’re saying that there’s a situation of interest at AFRINIC that is 
relevant to network operators in general, then might I suggest that you avail 
yourself of one of the discussion lists that already exist for network 
operators for such purposes (as the arin-ppml mailing list is and remains for 
number resource policy discussions.)


Or I could continue to discuss such topics on PPML like we've been
doing for the last quarter century and if you take exception to it we
can start a discussion about whether ARIN intends to tighten
participation it allows the general public.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



___
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] [E] Re: AFRINIC vote buying

2022-06-10 Thread Fernando Frediani

Hi Stephen

Yeah I see and agree with what you mean about personal level discussions
which differs from Internet Governance and Policy Development topics.

Best regards
Fernando

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022, 15:49 Middleton, Stephen R, <
stephen.r.middle...@verizon.com> wrote:

> Hello Fernando,
>
> I agree, the topic of vote buying and similar is worthy of discussion as
> it could lead to or shape a policy discussion.  But is it worthy to discuss
> ARIN members on a personal level?  I think the topic got into the weeds
> fairly quickly.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> [image: Verizon] <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
>
> Stephen R. Middleton, Sr.
> Princ Engr-Ntwk Engring
> Network Engineering and Ops
>
> 22001 Loudoun County Parkway; F1-2-277
> Ashburn, VA 20147
>
> Office 703.694.6965
> stephen.r.middle...@one.verizon.com
>
>
>
> [image: Facebook] <http://www.facebook.com/verizon>  [image: Twitter]
> <http://twitter.com/verizon>  [image: LinkedIn]
> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/verizon>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 2:27 PM Fernando Frediani 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Stephen
>>
>> Although I am not much involved in this discussion, although I commented
>> I have to say that I often see this type of questioning in the list and I
>> personally don't see the list exclusively to discuss policies, but anything
>> that may have to do with them and with this Policy Development Discussion
>> ecosystem we are all involved.
>>
>> People participating here take in consideration a lot of details to form
>> their opinion and discuss about the proposed policies and anything that may
>> have to do with an attack against a RIR, a tentative of manipulation of the
>> process being the PDP or election to the Board or any RIR that may also
>> happen in this one should be of the concern of everybody involved, so they
>> can have more information to form their opinion regarding the effects of
>> each proposal that is presented here and its possible effects.
>>
>> Finally and not less important, although we have Regional RIRs the
>> effects of trouble happening in other RIRs have the potential to affect how
>> things work for all others and by consequence the whole of Internet, so
>> another reason is good that people participating in the this list get this
>> related information to take in account when discussing any proposed
>> policies and also if that kind of trouble could also happen here.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Fernando
>> On 10/06/2022 15:08, Middleton, Stephen R via ARIN-PPML wrote:
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>>
>> Not meaning to be a wet blanket but which ARIN policy is this discussion
>> in relation to?  I seem to recall that the PPML List is to "provide a
>> forum to raise and discuss policy-related ideas and issues surrounding
>> existing and proposed ARIN policies."
>>
>> Perhaps the community would be better served if the current
>> conversation to a forum more focused on the topic being discussed?
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: Verizon] <http://www.verizon.com/>
>>
>>
>> Stephen R. Middleton, Sr.
>> Princ Engr-Ntwk Engring
>> Network Engineering and Ops
>>
>> 22001 Loudoun County Parkway; F1-2-277
>> Ashburn, VA 20147
>>
>> Office 703.694.6965
>> stephen.r.middle...@one.verizon.com
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: Facebook]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_verizon=DwMDaQ=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ=PNlZCOTcrBXvix6v31kntg680rC2tshHDXM0RcJv5bE=GF0qF-lOJRTPuiiHhL1cfyZ23W4ZbnDlJQaCsCkNTTDtio02FWtmW58i1iU1zp_Y=nneOQM-Ypvhyq4x-mbhACdzpWEcRXcX_qy40X_mDhIY=>
>>   [image: Twitter]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__twitter.com_verizon=DwMDaQ=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ=PNlZCOTcrBXvix6v31kntg680rC2tshHDXM0RcJv5bE=GF0qF-lOJRTPuiiHhL1cfyZ23W4ZbnDlJQaCsCkNTTDtio02FWtmW58i1iU1zp_Y=XNmmdi5Sww7Yb6VMKZN48rsTsTjwWbmXHBUgHTdBhN4=>
>>   [image: LinkedIn]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_verizon=DwMDaQ=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ=PNlZCOTcrBXvix6v31kntg680rC2tshHDXM0RcJv5bE=GF0qF-lOJRTPuiiHhL1cfyZ23W4ZbnDlJQaCsCkNTTDtio02FWtmW58i1iU1zp_Y=wQjVyOYAQsqp3gOqzm9Kaq0idYRmPtZmurjpo7kjoJ0=>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 12:14 PM Omo Oaiya  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 at 16:29, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML <
>>> arin-ppml@arin.net> wr

Re: [arin-ppml] [E] Re: AFRINIC vote buying

2022-06-10 Thread Fernando Frediani


Hello Stephen

Although I am not much involved in this discussion, although I commented 
I have to say that I often see this type of questioning in the list and 
I personally don't see the list exclusively to discuss policies, but 
anything that may have to do with them and with this Policy Development 
Discussion ecosystem we are all involved.


People participating here take in consideration a lot of details to form 
their opinion and discuss about the proposed policies and anything that 
may have to do with an attack against a RIR, a tentative of manipulation 
of the process being the PDP or election to the Board or any RIR that 
may also happen in this one should be of the concern of everybody 
involved, so they can have more information to form their opinion 
regarding the effects of each proposal that is presented here and its 
possible effects.


Finally and not less important, although we have Regional RIRs the 
effects of trouble happening in other RIRs have the potential to affect 
how things work for all others and by consequence the whole of Internet, 
so another reason is good that people participating in the this list get 
this related information to take in account when discussing any proposed 
policies and also if that kind of trouble could also happen here.


Best regards
Fernando

On 10/06/2022 15:08, Middleton, Stephen R via ARIN-PPML wrote:

Greetings,


Not meaning to be a wet blanket but which ARIN policy is this 
discussion in relation to?  I seem to recall that the PPML List is to 
"provide a forum to raise and discuss policy-related ideas and issues 
surrounding existing and proposed ARIN policies."


Perhaps the community would be better served if the current 
conversation to a forum more focused on the topic being discussed?



Best Regards,



Verizon 


Stephen R. Middleton, Sr.
Princ Engr-Ntwk Engring
Network Engineering and Ops

22001 Loudoun County Parkway; F1-2-277
Ashburn, VA 20147

Office 703.694.6965
stephen.r.middle...@one.verizon.com 



Facebook Twitter 
LinkedIn 





On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 12:14 PM Omo Oaiya  wrote:




On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 at 16:29, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML
 wrote:




On Jun 10, 2022, at 05:22 , Noah  wrote:



On Wed, 8 Jun 2022, 00:19 Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML,
 wrote:


Yes, there’s no secret that I am a consultant to Cloud
Innovation and
Larus, Ltd.


True story.

However, I have no involvement or affiliation with NRS and
no desire to have same.


Internet archives never forget.

https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/013810.html



On that thread, your response was in full defence of NRS as
you really went on to explaib what they are all about as
though you had insider knowledge of the organization.

Cheers,
Noah


Nope… It was a statement against certain misinformation being
promulgated by you at the time.

It was based on the publicly available record at the time and
not any internal knowledge or affiliation with NRS.

I don’t agree with lots of things Larus is doing/has done, but
I’m supporting them in their law suits because I believe the
board and staff are just plain wrong in their effort to revoke
their membership based on a plain text reading of the
provisions cited by the board and staff in their various
affidavits and correspondence.

Facts are facts. When I see misinformation and/or
disinformation, I will tend to speak out against it, even when
I don’t agree with or support the party being attacked.


These would have to be alternative facts from your track record on
the AFRINIC lists :-)

Omo
___
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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.arin.net_mailman_listinfo_arin-2Dppml=DwICAg=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ=PNlZCOTcrBXvix6v31kntg680rC2tshHDXM0RcJv5bE=9sw9nyzLNUg6DZYGzlnK8WkqhJdEJxryDRavaNpfwNMSxaa79ZFZWW8vRTN-vlYl=PhELEmVQxYaj0w5Y14ZaHW2wj2e6nZRqcQn__FbBgtA=

Re: [arin-ppml] AFRINIC vote buying

2022-06-01 Thread Fernando Frediani

In my humble personal opinion this is the result and natural side-effect 
of stimulating things like IP Leasing from those who have a lot of spare 
IP Address to those who have been seeking it specially in the times of 
IPv4 exhaustion.


Some people, even those who are not directly involved in these type of 
business, belittle it and say that´s a normal thing, that we have to 
accept it, etc, etc, but it is not.
It is not by chance that this has never been an accepted practice to 
justify the need for resources to any RIR, because IP addresses are a 
shared owned resource and should not be available to be disposed at will 
by any resource holders.


Because of this distortion this said "normal thing" causes in the market 
it may have side effects like this and why everyone that cares about 
stability of this system should strongly repeal any kind of IP Leasing 
in order to not worse things even more in the ecosystem we are all 
involved. Today is in AfriNic, tomorrow may be at your nextdoor.


Regards
Fernando

On 01/06/2022 01:02, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
  
Even though this relates to a whole different Regional Internet Registry,

I think that some (many) of you may be interested to watch this video and
to learn what's been going on of late down in the AFRINIC region.
  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32xCurWfJo4


___
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] On the history of early number registrations, ARIN, and ARIN's role in the administration of the Internet number registry

2022-04-14 Thread Fernando Frediani


Hi

Thanks for the history and better clarification. However it is not still 
clear to me if ARIN can, at some point and under which conditions 
recover these legacy blocks which look abandoned and have zero signal of 
being used or have some organization looking after it, and send to be 
re-assigned to the waiting list.


I agree with some of the messages that is not reasonable to think that 
after all this time some organizations may be unaware of what is 
happening that justifies to keep having special treatment. 25 years is 
quiet a while ! Legacy Resources has always been an issue in different 
aspects and there should have been more stuff done to avoid certain 
controversies where possible overtime. I personally don't have a problem 
with them keeping the resources as long they have justification of need 
and not just based on "acquired rights".


If I understand it correctly it is possible to advance further in this 
specific matter without a need for the community to produce and agree in 
a new policy, so what prevents this from happening ? Are there any major 
legal risks or is it just extra patience with those who don't seem to 
want to cooperate in a well established system for the past decades ?


Regards
Fernando

On 14/04/2022 11:50, John Curran wrote:

Folks -

I have some good news and some bad news…  The good news is that the 
history of the Internet number registry system is actually fairly 
well-known – for instance, we know the parties that were involved and 
have many examples of the emails that were sent when number resources 
were issued – whether it was done by SRI, GSI, NSI as InterNIC, NSI 
directly, etc.  (This shouldn’t be unexpected, since NSI transferred 
the personnel, systems, and records from IP number registry to ARIN at 
the time of our formation.)


The bad news is that such communications were written to be 
expeditious in the administration of the registry, as opposed to being 
written with legal clarity.  As a simple example of that fact, 
consider that the term "IP address block” – the "thing" being issued – 
was actually not defined in any of these communications.   As a result 
of the nature of these early communications, there’s enough ambiguity 
to support differences in opinion over the nature of the legacy 
address assignments in the registry.


However, there are a few points in the history of the registry that 
are quite clear, and these include:


 1. ARIN was formed for the purpose of administration of the registry
in North America and took over that responsibility at the time of
our formation – including the transfer of the registry database to
ARIN at USG direction.
 2. ARIN’s administration of the registry is be performed in
accordance with our community-developed policies – and we are
aware of no obligations that prevent ARIN from doing so for all
number resources in the registry, including legacy resources.
 3. Those with legacy number resources are encouraged to participate
in the open policy process so as to have a voice in the policies
by which they are managed – such participation doesn’t require any
agreement with ARIN and is actually a significant part of why ARIN
was formed - “Creation of ARIN will give the users of IP numbers
(mostly Internet service providers, corporations and other large
institutions) a voice in the policies by which they are managed
and allocated within the North American region.”
 


This is why organizations with legacy number resources are encouraged 
to participate in ARIN’s policy development process – ARIN was 
specifically formed so that they would have a voice in the policies 
used in the management of those number resources, and hence why ARIN 
routinely reiterates that legacy number resources are indeed subject 
to ARIN's registry policies.  (The community can certainly make 
policies that exclude legacy number resources or affect them in a 
different manner, but again, that is for the community to decide…)

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers




___
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 contacti...@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] Have we REALLY got to this sad state of disrepair?

2022-04-12 Thread Fernando Frediani


Is it necessary for a third party to have to prove that categorically ?

My understanding is that it should be enough to send fair amount of 
evidences to the RIR and it has the duty to get in touch with that 
organization to gather information and if necessary ask them to justify 
if the justifications given in the past remain valid (if there is any 
response), and if not then simply recover the block, isn't it ? That 
should be that natural path for these things to happen.
If a block is abandoned for a long time, there is no response for the 
said resources holder then recover it and assign to someone else that 
really justify for that now a days.


Fernando

On 12/04/2022 18:32, Adam Thompson wrote:

I would like a mechanism to do this, or something closely related - nominate blocks we 
know are orphans.  For example, I obtained a legacy /24 for my employer in the early 
'90s.  That company is no longer in business.  I can guarantee the block isn't (or 
shouldn't be) in use on the public internet.  I know the owner never sold it, because I 
was working with him on that.  But I have no way to *prove* its abandonment.  So there it 
sits, forever inaccessible.  I mean, I could squat on it :-) but that's called 
"being part of the problem".
The amount of effort it was going to require on my part and the company owner's 
just to get it released back into the free pool, never mind sell it, was 
prohibitive.  (I've had this discussion with Cathy(?) @ Member Services before, 
getting things notarized in Manitoba is a VERY significant burden, in time, in 
travel, and in cost, compared to other jurisdictions.)
There really ought to be a better solution to that - everyone on this list is 
probably aware of some zombie/orphan allocations they've been involved with.
Within ARIN's current stance/perspective on legal issues (which I've criticized 
before, here), though, I don't see any easy fix.
-Adam

Adam Thompson
Consultant, Infrastructure Services
MERLIN
100 - 135 Innovation Drive
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 6A8
(204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only)
athomp...@merlin.mb.ca
www.merlin.mb.ca


-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML  On Behalf Of William
Herrin
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 8:55 PM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt 
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Have we REALLY got to this sad state of disrepair?

On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 5:00 PM Ted Mittelstaedt 
wrote:

ARIN has been pussyfooting around long enough with these zombie
resources, by now CKN23-ARIN should NEVER appear tied to a number
resource.  Please, get on the stick and get these resources freed so
they can be used.

Hi Ted,

I look forward to your policy proposal in which an IP broker or other
interested party can be granted care of a zombie legacy block, perform
the legal diligence needed to justify releasing its registration,
arrange the proper indemnity for ARIN should they have it wrong, and
subsequently arrange its transfer to a new registrant.

There are, of course, no non-legacy zombie blocks. The non-legacy
blocks unavailable for assignment are in cool-down which is a
different thing entirely.

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.

___
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] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

2022-03-21 Thread Fernando Frediani

You may repeat 1000 times and still it will not become a true that when 
someone sell connectivity they lease IP addresses. When someone buys 
connectivity having an IP address is a condition for them to receive the 
connectivity services they are buying and the real propose of keeping IP 
addresses justified to the RIR.
There is a big and clear difference in one case and in the other which 
the build of Internet infrastructure and the service provision which is 
the main reason to justify the addresses.


Fernando

Em 20/03/2022 20:25, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML escreveu:

Leasing involves a contract for services, just like an ISP.

It’s no more arms length than leasing addresses to someone you sell 
connectivity to, you have a nearly identical contractual relationship.

In fact, many ISPs charge for former customers to retain their addresses after 
they terminate their connectivity. How does that differ from a company which 
leases addresses without connectivity?

I’m currently neither in favor of nor opposed to the proposed policy as 
written. I think it needs work before it’s ready to be a policy.

However, I am in favor of formalizing the practice of leasing in policy since 
it is the economic reality of IPv4 for the foreseeable future, whether it is 
formalized in policy or not.

Owen



On Mar 18, 2022, at 16:13, Michael Peddemors  wrote:

I oppose..

This removes ARIN's governance of IPv4 resources completely.  And in a worst 
case scenario a single party could buy up all of the IPv4 resources in theory, 
and effectively control the internet.

"Leasing" is for to wide of a definition, and needs to be better described 
before even considering this.

"leasing" is not a usage, IMHO in terms of the original mandate of ARIN, 
without a fixed customer base for services (eg, it could be said every ISP leases IPs to 
their customers) which is very different than saying we rent the IP(s) to arm's length 
parties.

On 2022-03-17 17:23, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote:

Actually, they’d be doing all of the same things any other LIR does with the 
exception of providing bandwidth and connectivity services.
They’d still be responsible for getting a reasonable justification from the 
customer, validating that justification, registering the addresses properly in 
whois, etc.
It might be a bit less overhead than being an ISP, but ISPs are increasingly 
short on IPv4 addresses and asking customers to get their own.
Many customers are unable to make the capital outlay necessary to purchase the 
addresses they need, but do have the cash flow to support a lease.
Many customers have a desire not to take the risk of a large capital outlay for 
a necessary component which may abruptly lose its value in the near to medium 
term.
This situation will only get worse as the cost of IPv4 addresses continues to 
rise and as IPv6 deployment continues.
Owen

On Mar 17, 2022, at 16:28 , Holden Karau mailto:hol...@pigscanfly.ca>> wrote:

Wait so some company could come to ARIN and ask for a block of IP addresses 
using leasing as the justification and then turn around and lease them.

What value is the leasing company providing? It seems like a solid way to get a 
bunch of LLCs formed to acquire IP addresses from the waiting list and then 
make money for doing ~nothing.

On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 4:18 PM Andrew Dul mailto:andrew@quark.net>> wrote:

The draft policy as currently written does not provide any
additional limits against speculation.  As drafted, it allows any
organization (including those who do not operate networks) to
obtain IPv4 addresses for the purpose of leasing.

With that policy change what types of limits does the community
think would be needed?

Thanks,
Andrew

On 3/17/2022 3:00 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:

+1 to both Owen and David Farmer's comments. Leasing IPv4 space
is likely the best solution for some networks that need those
addresses to operate their network. If an organization wants to
acquire and lease out IPv4 space without providing bundled IPv4
transit, that should be allowed by policy. It might be useful for
ARIN policy to try to slightly dampen speculation by requiring
that organizations seeking to acquire large blocks of IPv4 space
demonstrate that their current holdings are being efficiently
used by the organization they're registered to in whois. I am not
sure if this policy proposal does that to my satisfaction, but
once we ensure it does so, I would likely support it.

-Scott

On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 1:33 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML
mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>> wrote:




    On Mar 16, 2022, at 15:22 , Fernando Frediani
mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi David

If I understand correctly you seem to have a view that there
should be a ARIN policy to permit IPv4 leasing just because
it is a reality and we k

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

2022-03-18 Thread Fernando Frediani


Owen

You efforts to defend brokers interests and less of community interests 
are curious. And that hasn't been just in ARIN which is even more 
curious this increased efforts.
Interesting as well the conflict of "they will happen without the RIRs" 
and "ethical and policy compliant".


Oh and funny joke that a broker is like a LIR.


On 17/03/2022 17:32, Owen DeLong wrote:



On Mar 16, 2022, at 15:22 , Fernando Frediani  
wrote:


Hi David

If I understand correctly you seem to have a view that there should 
be a ARIN policy to permit IPv4 leasing just because it is a reality 
and we kind of have to accept it in our days. No we don't, and that's 
for many different reasons.


Well, of course, you are free to deny reality as much as you want. 
Many people do. It’s not particularly helpful in the discussion, however.


I am used to see people saying the brokers are doing a good thing for 
the community by facilitating the things which in reality is the 
opposite. It may look like a good things, but the real beneficiaries 
are only them who profit from it without much concern of what is fair 
or not to most organizations involved.




You are actually mistaken here. I used to think as you do, actually. I 
was very resistant to the first “specified transfer” policies because 
of some of the reasons you describe. However, what you are failing to 
recognize is that:
+Brokers and specified transfers were going to happen with or without 
the RIRs. If they happened without the RIRs,
there’d be no accurate record of who was using which address space and 
the provenance of addresses would be

very difficult to support or defend.

*Benefit to the community from brokers: (ethical) brokers are familiar 
with the rules in the RIRs in which
they operate and can assist their customers in accurate and compliant 
registration updates and

aid in keeping the allocation database(s) accurate.

+With the economic realities of IPv4 addresses becoming progressively 
more and more expensive and the advent
of ISPs with limited IPv4 resources available, it is inevitable that 
more and more IP service providers will be

doing one or more of the following:

+Separate surcharges for IPv4 addresses
+Expecting customers to supply their own IPv4 addresses
+Surcharges for IPv4 services
+IPv4 “installation charges” large enough to cover the procurement of 
addresses


*Brokers assist ISPs and customers in many of the above circumstances.

+With a variety of organizations holding IPv4 addresses that may or 
may not even known they have them and whose
IPv4 resources may vastly exceed their needs, it is (arguably) 
desirable to have those addresses be transferred to parties

that have current need for IPv4 addresses.

*Brokers provide a valuable service to the community identifying and 
marketing these resources
*Paid transfers provide an incentive for entities to make more 
efficient use of the resources they have in order
to monetize the resources they no longer need. Brokers are frequently 
able to assist in this process.


+With the high cost of acquisition, IPv4 addresses have become a 
capital intensive part of any network-dependent
business model that must support IPv4. Further, there is some risk 
that this capital outlay may be fore a resource
which will abruptly and quickly lose its value and no longer be needed 
well before it can be amortized as a capital
expenditure. As such, it may make sense for some entities to transfer 
that risk to another organization by using

a lease structure instead of purchasing the addresses outright.

*Brokers that provide IPv4 leasing in an ethical and policy compliant 
way provide a valuable service
to these businesses. Yes, their price per address may eventually be 
more than it would have cost
them to purchase the addresses, but the same is true of virtually any 
rental situation.  On the other hand,
that excess helps offset the risk that the lessor is taking by owning 
a resource that may or may not remain

valuable and may or may not continue to produce revenue.


IP Leasing is very different from IP Transfer which I see not problem 
they continue doing it. IP Transfer at least we have some guarantees 
that the directly receiving organization really justify for them and 
that is a quiet important (I would say fundamental) point to look at, 
because that is fairer to everyone involved. What guarantees we have 
when a IP Leasing is done in that sense, that fairness start to lack 
here.


If we set the policies up correctly, we should have the same exact 
guarantees on a lease.


If $ISP acquires a /10 through transfer and then issues various 
subordinate prefixes to their customer, the only guarantee
you have that $ISP’s customers who receive the addresses really 
justify them is that $ISP says so. We generally trust $ISP

to act in good faith.

If $LESSOR acquires a /10 through transfer and then leases various 
subordinate prefixes to their customers, we have pretty
muc

Re: [arin-ppml] FW: Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

2022-03-18 Thread Fernando Frediani


On 18/03/2022 11:52, Mike Burns wrote:



The primary value of the leasing company is that they are allowing the 
effective financing of Ipv4 address space through the taking-on of 
risk in the initial investment.  Currently there is no vehicle for 
this, and the result is that smaller, newer, less-capitalized 
companies are required to pay in full, up-front, for address blocks.


That's the repeated history brokers have been trying to tell 
organizations that have been facing challenges regarding IPv4 exhaustion 
either because they are new in the sector or most commonly because they 
didn't bother to take any other measures to deal with the new standard.
Even newcomers have how to have access to some amounts to work with 
without needing to lease them from an organization who don't have 
justification to keep those addresses. And still brokers who have been 
facilitating IP leasing play the good guys as if there was not other 
options and we as a community who define the rules would have to accept 
it and change the current rules for their own benefit, not the community.


The reality is the IP Leasing increase costs for all (either those who 
lease or transfer), eliminates accountability, increases unfainess and 
still the history if that leasing comes save those "poor less capable ones".


This "vehicle" expensive and unnecessary and there are options available 
that not necessarily imposes worsening the whole system for few people 
benefits.


Fernando

Unless they lease them from the only allowed lessors (per current 
policy), that is the IPv4-rich incumbent owners.


So if you want to support the little guy, I think you should support 
this policy, but if you want to protect those who received address in 
the past that they no longer need, then you should oppose this policy.


There are many other values the leasing company provides, values 
stemming from skills related to reputation, location, hijacking, 
recovery, and the pre-identification of scammers/spammers, and values 
related to the provision of addresses for temporary or seasonal use, 
or to enter markets aggressively which may or may not pay off. As the 
market matures, more value will no doubt be driven by competition. 
Things like lease-to-own options, highly efficient web or app-based 
access to lessors and lessees, these are some things that spring to my 
mind as capabilities to distinguish leasing companies from RIRs so as 
to provide the value that the market requires. If there were no value 
provided, why would anybody utilize their services?


Regards,

Mike

*From:* ARIN-PPML  *On Behalf Of *Holden Karau
*Sent:* Thursday, March 17, 2022 7:29 PM
*To:* andrew@quark.net
*Cc:* arin-ppml 
*Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy 
ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining 
Utilization for Future Allocations


Wait so some company could come to ARIN and ask for a block of IP 
addresses using leasing as the justification and then turn around and 
lease them.


What value is the leasing company providing? It seems like a solid way 
to get a bunch of LLCs formed to acquire IP addresses from the waiting 
list and then make money for doing ~nothing.


On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 4:18 PM Andrew Dul  wrote:

The draft policy as currently written does not provide any
additional limits against speculation.  As drafted, it allows any
organization (including those who do not operate networks) to
obtain IPv4 addresses for the purpose of leasing.

With that policy change what types of limits does the community
think would be needed?

Thanks,

Andrew

On 3/17/2022 3:00 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:

+1 to both Owen and David Farmer's comments. Leasing IPv4
space is likely the best solution for some networks that need
those addresses to operate their network. If an organization
wants to acquire and lease out IPv4 space without providing
bundled IPv4 transit, that should be allowed by policy. It
might be useful for ARIN policy to try to slightly dampen
speculation by requiring that organizations seeking to acquire
large blocks of IPv4 space demonstrate that their current
holdings are being efficiently used by the organization
they're registered to in whois. I am not sure if this policy
proposal does that to my satisfaction, but once we ensure it
does so, I would likely support it.

-Scott

On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 1:33 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML
 wrote:

On Mar 16, 2022, at 15:22 , Fernando Frediani
 wrote:

Hi David

If I understand correctly you seem to have a view that
there should be a ARIN policy to permit IPv4 leasing
just because it is a reality and we kind of have to
accept it in our days. No

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

2022-03-17 Thread Fernando Frediani

Exactly, that's the main point about how absurd the idea of leasing it, 
in any form.


I fell that some people sometimes are able to only look at a particular 
scenario that he/she being involved once or few times and believe that 
is the scenario for everybody else in order to justify leasing, so 
basically to resolve their own particular problem as if that was 
everybody else's problem and tentatively force a fundamental change in 
this system.  Does anyone really believe that most arguments  people 
involved in the leasing business are intended to do any good for the 
whole of the community or simply to promote changes to the rules that 
benefits fewer and specifics actors ?


Allowing leasing as some defend is detrimental to the whole RIR system 
and therefore to the whole of the community. IP Leasing resolves some 
minor cases but worse situations that at long term make things more 
difficult, expensive and less accountable, therefore less fair to 
everybody in a well established system. This is why justifications such 
as "need to change because there are already people doing it" or "it is 
the new reality and we have to accept" are just beautiful word to try to 
justify something that is not intended to build Internet using these 
shared resources. We can never call it another name - shared resources.


Fernando

On 17/03/2022 20:28, Holden Karau wrote:
Wait so some company could come to ARIN and ask for a block of IP 
addresses using leasing as the justification and then turn around and 
lease them.


What value is the leasing company providing? It seems like a solid way 
to get a bunch of LLCs formed to acquire IP addresses from the waiting 
list and then make money for doing ~nothing.


On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 4:18 PM Andrew Dul  wrote:

The draft policy as currently written does not provide any
additional limits against speculation.  As drafted, it allows any
organization (including those who do not operate networks) to
obtain IPv4 addresses for the purpose of leasing.

With that policy change what types of limits does the community
think would be needed?

Thanks,
Andrew

On 3/17/2022 3:00 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:

+1 to both Owen and David Farmer's comments. Leasing IPv4 space
is likely the best solution for some networks that need those
addresses to operate their network. If an organization wants to
acquire and lease out IPv4 space without providing bundled IPv4
transit, that should be allowed by policy. It might be useful for
ARIN policy to try to slightly dampen speculation by requiring
that organizations seeking to acquire large blocks of IPv4 space
demonstrate that their current holdings are being efficiently
used by the organization they're registered to in whois. I am not
sure if this policy proposal does that to my satisfaction, but
once we ensure it does so, I would likely support it.

-Scott

On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 1:33 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML
 wrote:




On Mar 16, 2022, at 15:22 , Fernando Frediani
 wrote:

Hi David

If I understand correctly you seem to have a view that there
should be a ARIN policy to permit IPv4 leasing just because
it is a reality and we kind of have to accept it in our
days. No we don't, and that's for many different reasons.


Well, of course, you are free to deny reality as much as you
want. Many people do. It’s not particularly helpful in the
discussion, however.


I am used to see people saying the brokers are doing a good
thing for the community by facilitating the things which in
reality is the opposite. It may look like a good things, but
the real beneficiaries are only them who profit from it
without much concern of what is fair or not to most
organizations involved.



You are actually mistaken here. I used to think as you do,
actually. I was very resistant to the first “specified
transfer” policies because of some of the reasons you
describe. However, what you are failing to recognize is that:
+Brokers and specified transfers were going to happen with or
without the RIRs. If they happened without the RIRs,
there’d be no accurate record of who was using which address
space and the provenance of addresses would be
very difficult to support or defend.

*Benefit to the community from brokers: (ethical) brokers are
familiar with the rules in the RIRs in which
they operate and can assist their customers in accurate and
compliant registration updates and
aid in keeping the allocation database(s) accurate.

+With the economic realities of IPv4 addresses becoming
progressively more and more expensive and the advent
of ISPs with limited IPv4 resources available, it is

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

2022-03-16 Thread Fernando Frediani


Hi David

If I understand correctly you seem to have a view that there should be a 
ARIN policy to permit IPv4 leasing just because it is a reality and we 
kind of have to accept it in our days. No we don't, and that's for many 
different reasons.


I am used to see people saying the brokers are doing a good thing for 
the community by facilitating the things which in reality is the 
opposite. It may look like a good things, but the real beneficiaries are 
only them who profit from it without much concern of what is fair or not 
to most organizations involved.
IP Leasing is very different from IP Transfer which I see not problem 
they continue doing it. IP Transfer at least we have some guarantees 
that the directly receiving organization really justify for them and 
that is a quiet important (I would say fundamental) point to look at, 
because that is fairer to everyone involved. What guarantees we have 
when a IP Leasing is done in that sense, that fairness start to lack here.


People see the brokers are doing a favor to organizations in general by 
facilitating they get some chunks of IPv4, but that in reality makes the 
cost of IPv4 for both leasing and transfer more and more expensive as it 
makes organization even more dependent from these those crumbs that seem 
to be offered with good intention but in reality it is feeding a system 
that is contrary the interests to most organizations involved.


It may sound a cliche but IPv4 is over and organizations must learn how 
to survive with what they have, reinvent themselves and make better used 
of their IPv4 resources, deploy a proper CGNAT, deploy IPv6 either they 
like it or not, etc. If an organization have so little or none and need 
some minimal amount is fine they seek for a Transfer of a minimal amount 
with the help of brokers.


Encouraging IP Leasing as if it were something normal just "because it 
exists today" is a shot in the foot that in the long term only worsens 
the existing scenario, it feeds a market without much discretion 
increasing final prices for everyone and what is the worst of all, 
creates even more unfairness for everyone who has always submitted to 
the rules we have until today for distributing addresses to those who 
really have a real justification to keep control of that resource that 
does not belong to them.


Regards
Fernando

On 16/03/2022 13:09, David Farmer via ARIN-PPML wrote:
Yes, bundling IPv4 addresses with bandwidth is permitted, and in the 
past was common practice, heck even the expected practice. However, 
the fact that IPv4 address demand isn't decreasing significantly, the 
costs to acquire new IPv4 addresses are increasing significantly, and 
with the increasing commoditization of bandwidth, it is no longer 
economically viable to bundle bandwidth, and its associated 
connectivity, with IPv4 addressing. This is driving a structural 
separation of bandwidth, connectivity, and IPv4 addressing, from each 
other, instead of bundling them together as in the past.


Let me state that differently; ISPs are being driven, buy cost 
conscience consumers, to separate the costs of bandwidth and the costs 
of the IPv4 addresses needed to utilize the bandwidth from each 
other.  Minimally this separation is achieved by accounting for the 
costs on separate line items of a common bill from a single provider. 
However, price competition for bandwidth and IPv4 addresses separately 
will inevitably drive a structural separation between the two. 
Consumers will want the best price they can get for bandwidth and the 
best price they can get for IPv4 addresses, regardless of whether they 
come from a single provider or not.


Some may argue this is being driven by the existence of address 
brokers, and their desire to make money, I disagree. While address 
brokers making money is the grease that keeps this machine working, 
the need for the machine is driven by; IPv4 free pool exhaustion, the 
increasing cost of IPv4 addresses, and the lack of adoption of IPv6.
In other words, address brokers wouldn't exist if there wasn't a 
demand for their services.


In short, the economic conditions that allowed for and even encouraged 
the bundling of IPv4 addresses with bandwidth and connectivity no 
longer exist, that world is gone. While I have not personally yet 
determined if I support this particular policy text, nevertheless, the 
time has come to recognize the next step in this inextricable 
evolution of IPv4 address policy by the ARIN policy community and 
permit IPv4 leasing.


Thanks.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 5:05 PM John Santos  wrote:

I disagree.  The addresses are useless unless they ALSO purchase
access and
routing from another network operator.  How is this cheaper?

It is and always has been allowed to lease bundled access of
addresses and
connectivity from a LIR, without any expense for purchasing those
addresses.


On 3/11/2022 12:13 PM, Tom Fantacone wrote:
> I support the

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

Scott, the point is that we should not be spending much time and should 
dismiss such proposal because although it may not look like it is 
willing to change a fundamental thing about IP address usage based on 
justification, something that doesn't require to much debate such 
obvious it is. Fundamentally we are not dealing with an irrevocable 
asset that someone purchased and may dispose or sell it at he/she 
wishes, but about a right to use which may be revoked if used against 
the rules.
Therefore it should not need too much debate to find out that anyone 
using this scarce resources, that doesn't belong to anyone individually 
MUST always justify for that need.


There is already a neutral and well established entity tasked to 
evaluate those justifications, the RIR, and we all assume they do this 
in the most impartial way. And better they do this directlly with those 
who are really using the resources, not via a 3rd party who have 
financial interest in it.


For those that for a moment believe a lessor may be able to justify to 
the RIR that "their clients are really using it" (just look how absurd 
this is!), it is a lot simple and removes any points of doubt to just 
have any unjustified space to be returned to the RIR and they, according 
to the current agreed rules will re-distribute those addresses to those 
who are really building operational networks in a most neutral and fair 
way, not to those who are able to pay more for it.


If for some reason a resource holder realizes doesn't need any addresses 
anymore there are always the Transfer policies in place. As long the 
receiver can justify the need and building networks ARIN will proceed 
with the transfer.
We do not need 3rd parties making it even more complex something that 
can remain simple in the hands of the RIR - and avoids pretending 
leasing is a normal and legitimate thing. At the end that only 
beneficiaries are the companies who intermediate these type of business 
and have financial interest in it, not the organizations who need IP 
addresses.


I don't care that leasing "makes it cheaper" in short time for those 
without IP addresses to get some, but only that those who really justify 
for those resources do that directly with the RIR which is the fairer 
thing to all involved - all the community - which is the most important. 
We if let these 3rd parties turn something unnecessary in something 
normal we all know where it is going to end basically because their 
interest is not a better and fair distribution of IP addresses to those 
who really need or who are building networks, but simple to those who 
are willing to pay more.


Regards
Fernando

Em 11/03/2022 15:43, Scott Leibrand escreveu:
It seems that lots of people oppose this policy based on 
their assumptions about what it will do to the economics of the IP 
address transfer market, but no one is making those assumptions 
explicit or describing what exactly they think would happen if it were 
passed.


Right now https://auctions.ipv4.global/prior-sales is showing recent 
prices of about $55 per IP (to buy them on the transfer market), up 
from about $30/IP a year ago.


Right now https://www.heficed.com/lease-ipv4/ is quoting $0.50/mo per 
IP ($546 for 1024 addresses). The data at 
https://www.ipxo.com/blog/leasing-vs-buying-ip-addresses/ is a bit 
older, but indicates that in late 2020, prices were in a similar range 
of $0.34 - $0.67 per IP.


If someone buys addresses at $55 each and leases them out at $0.50/mo, 
it would take 110 months (9 years) to cover the cost. That would be a 
lousy business, so clearly, entities leasing space are expecting IPv4 
purchase prices to continue rising more quickly than their cost of 
financing, and expect to be able to sell any addresses they buy at a 
profit.


Leasing is clearly already happening. Right now it has to be done 
using RIPE space or by an entity that has (at least nominal) network 
connectivity.


If you oppose or support this policy on grounds that it will affect 
the supply and demand of addresses, can you be more specific as to 
what effects you expect relaxing the justification requirements for 
those offering IP leasing who want to buy more space to lease 
out would have? How would this policy affect the demand and price of 
IPv4 addresses bought and sold on the transfer market? How would that 
affect the supply, demand, and price of IPv4 addresses available for 
lease? How would that affect network operators? Would more of them 
switch from purchasing addresses to leasing them? With leasing 
(currently) being cheaper than purchasing (because a purchase is also 
an investment in a currently-appreciating asset), would it help or 
hurt network operators for leasing to be considered a more legitimate 
option?


-Scott

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 10:02 AM Fernando Frediani 
 wrote:


On 11/03/2022 14:56, Tom Fantacone wrote:

Bill,

We can quibble about semantics, but let's g

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations


On 11/03/2022 14:56, Tom Fantacone wrote:

Bill,

We can quibble about semantics, but let's go with your verbiage:

If I run a network and qualify for an /18 right now, can I go to ARIN 
and lease one?   I must either /pay someone to release their addresses 
to ARIN to lease to me/ or lease one from a (non-ARIN) 3rd party.
And that should always be the expected, release them to ARIN which 
should be the only actor taking care of it.
I really fail to understand how can one consider legit that a 3rd party 
could be doing this job otherwise.


If everybody sticks that what is expected, things work better, is much 
better to trust ARIN to do this plus in the end doing in such way 
doesn't least space for speculation, price rises and community have the 
assurance that the one who is intermediating it is someone really 
neutral and with no other interests to the business other than make sure 
the policies are being followed.


Fernando



And the amount I must pay (commonly referred to as the Purchase Price 
in most IPv4 transfer contracts, whether I'm technically "buying" it 
or not), is significantly more than either typical lease rates or 
ARIN's annual fees.  My point is that 3rd party lessors do provide a 
service that ARIN does not.


Regards,

Tom Fantacone



 On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 12:42:52 -0500 *William Herrin 
* wrote 


On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 9:40 AM Tom Fantacone 
wrote:
> If I run a network and qualify for an /18 right now, can I got
to ARIN and lease one? I must either buy one on the transfer market

Tom,

I think you misunderstand the transfer market. You don't buy
addresses
on the transfer market. You lease addresses from ARIN and then pay
someone on the transfer market to release their addresses to ARIN for
lease to you.

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 contacti...@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] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations


Wrong.
You don't lease addresses from ARIN.

You receive them for used based on the justified needs and you pay an 
administrative fee to support the services to keep all the 
infrastructure necessary for the ecosystem that keeps track of those 
resources remain operational. This has nothing to do with leasing them 
from ARIN.


Fernando

On 11/03/2022 14:42, William Herrin wrote:

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 9:40 AM Tom Fantacone  wrote:

If I run a network and qualify for an /18 right now, can I got to ARIN and 
lease one?   I must either buy one on the transfer market

Tom,

I think you misunderstand the transfer market. You don't buy addresses
on the transfer market. You lease addresses from ARIN and then pay
someone on the transfer market to release their addresses to ARIN for
lease to you.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



___
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] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

The justification that one cannot pay for something (make a proper 
Transfer as expected under the current policy) doesn't seem to be a 
valid justification to remove a essential requirement for justifying 
need to usage of those resources that don't belong to them.
The principle of usage justification to become a resource holder doesn't 
take in account if something is expensive or cheap to someone.


Fernando

On 11/03/2022 14:13, Tom Fantacone wrote:

I support the proposal as written.

It facilitates the provision of a valuable service to a large swath of 
the ARIN community, namely the ability of network operators with an 
operational need to lease IPv4 addresses from 3rd party lessors at a 
fraction of the cost of purchasing those addresses.  Too often we have 
seen network operators justify their need for IPv4 space only to find 
that they can't afford to make the purchase.  They end up using CGNAT 
or some other sub-optimal solution.


Bill, regarding your point "B", by providing IPv4 leasing, these 3rd 
parties are certainly performing a function that ARIN does not.




 On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 17:46:36 -0500 *William Herrin 
* wrote 


On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 8:24 PM ARIN  wrote:
> * ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of
Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

I continue to OPPOSE this proposal because:

A) It asks ARIN to facilitate blatant and unapologetic rent-seeking
behavior with changes to public policy.

B) It proposes that third parties perform precisely and only the
functions that ARIN itself performs without any credible compliance
mechanism to assure the third party performs to ARIN's standards
or in
accordance with the community's established number policy.

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.




___
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 contacti...@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] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations


I am opposed to this proposal.
In fact it sound like a debauchery to try to permit leased addresses to 
be a valid reasons for justifying any type of allocation.


It is not in ARIN interest to facilitate something that not only is 
essentially against the fundamental of IP usage and justification but 
only would favor a tiny niche of business from what a tiny fraction of 
ARIN community benefits - the brokers.
I totally agree that in practice what is proposed removes functions from 
ARIN without any credible compliance mechanism to assure resources are 
being used as they have always intended to be.


Another thing from this proposal is that it started with subject "Remove 
Circuit Requirement" which is a too simplistic description of what it 
intends to do which was later adjusted to show all community what really is.


If there is no circuit in place there is no Internet access being 
provided and as such there is not justification to keep addresses if 
they are not used for providing Internet access. Addresses are not and 
can never be justified to be used to simply be leased to a third parties 
that are perfectly able to be RIR members and justify the need directly 
without any intermediaries.


Regards
Fernando

Em 10/03/2022 19:46, William Herrin escreveu:

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 8:24 PM ARIN  wrote:

* ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining 
Utilization for Future Allocations

I continue to OPPOSE this proposal because:

A) It asks ARIN to facilitate blatant and unapologetic rent-seeking
behavior with changes to public policy.

B) It proposes that third parties perform precisely and only the
functions that ARIN itself performs without any credible compliance
mechanism to assure the third party performs to ARIN's standards or in
accordance with the community's established number policy.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

___
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] Updated text for ARIN-2020-6 'Allowance for IPv4 Allocation “Swap” Transactions via 8.3 Specified Transfers and 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfers'

2022-02-08 Thread Fernando Frediani

It seems that is suggested the interest of the sellers may be above the 
interests of the ARIN community which I obviously disagree. Need to find 
out what fits for the current scenario we face but community interests 
should always prevail.


And again RIPE examples are almost always not very good ones to be 
replicated in other regions. It may be good for certain actors of this 
business, but not necessarily for most of the community involved.
Every time a "good" RIPE example is mentioned in contrast with something 
the opposite somewhere else I kind of fell that this somewhere else may 
be going in a good direction.


Regarding the merit of the proposal what would the acceptable size to to 
allow to fractionatethat block, if any ?


Regards
Fernando


On 08/02/2022 14:29, Mike Burns wrote:

Hi Rob,

I am opposed to the policy as written because it requires the larger block to 
be sold in one piece.
This isn't always possible or desirable for a seller. What if they have a /14 
or larger?
I prefer allowing the workaround with the new Org for the small block with a 
restriction on the new Org's access to the waiting list.

It would be better for ARIN to wake up and realize cluttering the NRPM with 
these increasingly byzantine rules has been proven to be unnecessary by the 
RIPE experience. Maybe a decade is long enough for the experiment? In RIPE, we 
don't have this deaggregation problem because the problem stems from the hoary 
needs test regime at ARIN.

Get rid of the needs-test and streamline the NRPM, continuing down the 
needs-test road will inevitably lead to more confusion as we carve out more and 
more exceptions.

Also this policy allows any block holder to buy a smaller block without a needs 
test by claiming they plan to sell the larger block in the future, they all get 
one bite at this apple without attestation.

Regards,
Mike



-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML  On Behalf Of Rob Seastrom
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2022 11:56 AM
To: ARIN-PPML List
Subject: [arin-ppml] Updated text for ARIN-2020-6 'Allowance for IPv4 
Allocation “Swap” Transactions via 8.3 Specified Transfers and 8.4 Inter-RIR 
Transfers'


Dear ARIN Community,

Pursuant to December's Staff and Legal review of ARIN-2020-6, the following 
changes have been made:

In section 8.5.5.1, changed

If the larger block is not transferred within one year of receipt of the 
smaller block, the smaller block will be ineligible for transfer under sections 
8.3 and 8.4, and the organization will be ineligible to receive any further 
transfers under this policy.

to

If the larger block is not transferred within one year of receipt of the 
smaller block, the organization will be ineligible to receive any further 
transfers under this section until the larger block is transferred.

Also:
* removed reference to officer attestation as a result of last summer's ACSP 
consultation.
* Clarified section 8.3 and 8.4 "Conditions on Source of Transfer" to refer 
directly to proposed section 8.5.5.1

The new text of the proposal is as follows.  Please share your thoughts.

Allowance for IPv4 Allocation “Swap” Transactions via 8.3 Specified Transfers 
and 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfers

Problem Statement: Organizations wishing to “swap out” a larger block for a 
smaller one in the interest of avoiding deaggregation (as opposed to breaking 
up their existing block and transferring only a part of it) are forbidden by 
existing 8.3 policy from being the source of the transfer for their larger 
block after receiving a smaller one for 12 months after receiving the smaller 
block. In practice, ARIN staff has been allowing orgs to transfer out blocks 
after receiving smaller ones inside of the 12-month window, but many ARIN 
resource holders are not aware of this. Some resource holders have worked 
around the restriction by creating a new org to receive the smaller block, but 
this practice has implications on waitlist policy, as the new org is now 
technically eligible to apply for wait-list space while the original org cannot.
Similar language is present in NRPM Section 8.4, as such, the practice should 
be sanctioned for those types of transfers as well.
Policy Statement: Clarify the conditions under 8.3 and 8.4 that explicitly 
allows transfer of a larger block in exchange for a smaller one as part of a 
renumbering plan by making the following changes in 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5:

Current text:
8.5.5. Block Size
Organizations may qualify for the transfer of a larger initial block, or an 
additional block, by providing documentation to ARIN which details the use of 
at least 50% of the requested IPv4 block size within 24 months. An officer of 
the organization shall attest to the documentation provided to ARIN.
Add:
8.5.5.1- Transfer for the Purpose of Renumbering Organizations with larger 
direct allocations or assignments than they require may receive transfer of a 
smaller block for the purpose of renumbering onto the smaller block if they 
transfer the

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-4: Clarifications to Sections 8.3, 8.4 and 8.5.6

2022-01-21 Thread Fernando Frediani

I tend to think that transfers originally exists due to IPv4 exhaustion 
and that is justified. IPv6 and 32-bit ASN don't have the same 
justification, only 16-bit ASN.


I would also like to understand it better.

Regards
Fernando

On 21/01/2022 14:18, Scott Leibrand wrote:
Are Inter-regional transfers of ASNs allowed via policy today? If not, 
this is a substantive change on that topic, and the draft policy 
should be retitled accordingly.


I have no objections to allowing inter-regional ASN transfers, but 
would like to see an explicit argument if we are proposing to change 
whether it is allowed, even if that’s as simple as “some orgs want to 
do it”.


Scott


On Jan 21, 2022, at 7:42 AM, ARIN  wrote:

Inter-regional transfers of IPv4 number resources and ASNs


___
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 contacti...@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] ARIN Announces the Final Slate of Candidates for the 2021 ARIN Elections

2021-10-19 Thread Fernando Frediani


Hi
I think there are a few important points to highlight.

First I personally don't see a problem in the existence of a NomCom. If 
that exists is because the membership wanted that at some point to have 
it in the bylaws so that just reflects their wish and understanding a 
NomCom is something necessary for ARIN's reality.
I understand that sometimes NomCom decisions may be controversial but in 
theory they should provide a proper filter of candidates due to several 
different reasons and not simply just 'be qualified' as there is some 
always some level of subjectivity in this type of process. This is 
supposed be in protection the organization and to make sure that the 
candidate has the necessary requirements to fulfill such an important 
role. Imagine if the NomCom identifies some candidates to either the 
Board or AC that may have some conflict of interest with ARIN or may 
understand a possible take over tentative.


What perhaps is making this more controversial and can get some 
improvements is the lack of feedback from the NomCom, at least to the 
candidates, so they can choose to make the public or not to membership 
in order to get their support to be candidates via the petition process.
I believe it is not something good to just to cast a vote in support to 
a petition without knowing the reasons of why a candidate was reject by 
NomCom, so if a rejected candidate finds it interesting it may share 
with membership which with that information decide if they would support 
the candidate or not via the petition process.


Best regards
Fernando

On 19/10/2021 21:29, William Herrin wrote:

On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 1:43 PM Leif Sawyer  wrote:

I hear your frustrations for transparency, and I have formulated a suggestion 
that I've shared with the NomCom to improve the way that candidate responses 
are handled.

Hi Leif,

Why not simply ask the rejected candidates if they want an explanation
in specificity with the understanding that if they answer yes, the
explanation will be made publicly? That respects both privacy and
transparency.

Regards,
Bill Herrin




___
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] Proposal to ban Leasing of IP Addresses in the ARIN region


Hi John

I don't think anyone discussing this thread is much concerned about 
pricing of services between ARIN participants and their customers 
really. I am personally not. The confusion may have come from the way 
Owen have put the text of this proposal.
What we are discussing so far is only about a proposal to have an 
appropriate language to ban Leasing of IP Addresses by LIRs.


Hope this helps to clarify

Regards
Fernando

Em 22/09/2021 14:48, John Curran escreveu:

Fernando -

Michael was 100% correct - do not engage in discussions of pricing or 
other terms of service between ARIN participants and their customers. 
Doing so is prohibited by US antitrust law and ARIN will not be a 
party to facilitating such discussions.


Participants who attempt to violate applicable law in this manner will 
be expressly removed from ARIN mailing lists in order to protect the 
remainder of the community that is able to participate properly.


Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

On Sep 22, 2021, at 12:12 PM, Fernando Frediani 
 wrote:




I believe maybe Michael didn't understand well the matter fully or 
got only part of it.
Probably what caused more confusion was how Owen put the part "No 
signatory to any ARIN RSA is permitted by policy to engage in a 
recurring charge for addresses or a differentiated service charge 
based on the number if addresses issued to a customer.". That could 
be dubious in the sense that a LIR could not charge administrative 
fees when they assign addresses to their connectivity customers.


A simple: "No signatory to any ARIN RSA is permitted by policy to 
engage issuing addresses to non-conectivity customers. Addresses must 
be provided strictly as part of a contract for connectivity services."


I think Owen tried to put in a way to strengthen his point of view 
the LIR lease addresses and by that text they would not permitted to 
do even for connectivity customers.Simplifying it would achieve the 
objective in the subject without necessarily change the usual way 
LIRs allocate addresses to their *connectivity customers*.


Regards
Fernando

On 22/09/2021 13:00, Isaiah Olson wrote:

Hi Michael,

I appreciate you clarifying this issue. If this policy proposal is 
considered out of scope, I would ask why Mike's policy proposal to 
explicitly allow leasing is considered in-scope for this PDP? If it 
is ARIN's position that it "does not impose any such restrictions on 
trade or pricing" with regards to pricing structure, why does ARIN 
differentiate justified need for transfers (trade) based on the 
absence or presence of connectivity services?


I am happy to dispatch with any discussions that are not relevant or 
allowed, but I think that your post requires additional 
clarification of what topics are not permissible since many of the 
issues you have raised as out of scope are germane to other policies 
under discussion.


Thanks,
Isaiah

___
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] Proposal to ban Leasing of IP Addresses in the ARIN region


Hi Bill

You are right that just because we can't prevent something doesn't mean 
we have to legitimize it or make it easy.


I don't really have much concern when people say the RIR will find it 
difficult to enforce it. It is important to separate things: if 
something is categorically wrong then it must be said so and be as clear 
as possible to everybody that have to follow those rules.
Having certain language written clearly doesn't necessarily mean that 
ARIN staff must start hunting for offending parties and engage a lot of 
funds for that, but in first instance give them tools to justify their 
decisions and reducing the eventual conflicts between parties. Also and 
very important give them extra assurance to back their positions in a 
court case. Therefore as much as possible we should have policy language 
adjusted as close as possible as it should be.


If there is a major sentiment in the community that IP leasing it 
fundamentally wrong and should not happen in the way it has been 
discussed here then lets make it sure that is well written and clear to 
all. How ARIN will enforce it be up to staff to decide.


Chris - well noted about VPN scenarios. Got your analogy.
While there may not be a perfect text to fit for this case we may be 
able to find the most suitable one that cover most situations.
Overall once the policy advances and reach consensus it will be even 
more clear to community and to ARIN that the general consensus is not to 
allow or incentive IP leasing and any possible scenarios that ARIN be 
able to certify that may be happening.


Regards
Fernando

Em 22/09/2021 14:19, William Herrin escreveu:

On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 9:38 AM Chris Woodfield  wrote:

Fernando - I would support language similar to what you’ve proposed, as it 
explicitly requires the address allocation to be part of a connectivity service.

The trick then would be to make sure organizations can’t do it the other way 
around; I’m reminded of a nightclub I used to frequent that held a restaurant 
license, which only allowed them to serve alcohol as part of a order for food. 
As such, customers did not order drinks, they would buy a packet of peanuts 
that happened to be served with an alcoholic beverage alongside.

Let’s make sure that with this language, we don’t suddenly see an influx of 
“VPN Providers” who happen to be routing /24 or larger blocks to each of their 
customer’s tunnels.


Hi Chris,

As I noted in a recent thread, there's no language you can write which
will prevent that from happening. The service provider can just bump
it one step further back. "Oh, we can't provide a VPN? Okay, we don't.
We do BGP with the customer's virtual server and what they do with it
is not for us to say. Oh, we can't provide the virtual server or have
to police the customer's use?Tell that to Amazon before you hassle us.
Good luck."

However, just because we can't prevent something doesn't mean we have
to legitimize it and make it easy for the folks who want to be
high-price mini-ARINs. And if the status quo has become unstable due
to the price of IP addresses, I'd rather see the policy moved away
from leasing addresses for use with BGP rather than moved toward it.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



___
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] Proposal to ban Leasing of IP Addresses in the ARIN region

I believe maybe Michael didn't understand well the matter fully or got 
only part of it.
Probably what caused more confusion was how Owen put the part "No 
signatory to any ARIN RSA is permitted by policy to engage in a 
recurring charge for addresses or a differentiated service charge based 
on the number if addresses issued to a customer.". That could be dubious 
in the sense that a LIR could not charge administrative fees when they 
assign addresses to their connectivity customers.


A simple: "No signatory to any ARIN RSA is permitted by policy to engage 
issuing addresses to non-conectivity customers. Addresses must be 
provided strictly as part of a contract for connectivity services."


I think Owen tried to put in a way to strengthen his point of view the 
LIR lease addresses and by that text they would not permitted to do even 
for connectivity customers.Simplifying it would achieve the objective in 
the subject without necessarily change the usual way LIRs allocate 
addresses to their *connectivity customers*.


Regards
Fernando

On 22/09/2021 13:00, Isaiah Olson wrote:

Hi Michael,

I appreciate you clarifying this issue. If this policy proposal is 
considered out of scope, I would ask why Mike's policy proposal to 
explicitly allow leasing is considered in-scope for this PDP? If it is 
ARIN's position that it "does not impose any such restrictions on 
trade or pricing" with regards to pricing structure, why does ARIN 
differentiate justified need for transfers (trade) based on the 
absence or presence of connectivity services?


I am happy to dispatch with any discussions that are not relevant or 
allowed, but I think that your post requires additional clarification 
of what topics are not permissible since many of the issues you have 
raised as out of scope are germane to other policies under discussion.


Thanks,
Isaiah

___
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] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Remove Circuit Requirement


On 22/09/2021 03:49, Noah wrote:



So they choose to lease, and address holders are happy to monetize
their holdings while they appreciate in value.


By address holders you mean LIR. So what you are saying is that some 
LIR out there who requested for IPv4 based on need from ARIN, are 
holding the addresses which they no longer need artificially? So that 
they can lease to small WISP?


So that the purpose for which those LIR obtained the addresses in the 
first place?


Suppose the addresses those LIR are holding with no intension to use 
them, were still under ARIN management, dont you think the new small 
WISP would have better off being served by ARIN as new needs arise.?


If LIR dont pay ARIN lots of money, why not return the idle addresses 
to ARIN so that those with genuine need can be served.


That's the whole point I have been saying about the absurd IP leasing is.

It is quiet logical these organizations to be better off served by ARIN 
than a third party who probably doesn't even have justification to hold 
those addresses anymore. So either transfer them to someone who justify 
them or return them to ARIN so it can fullfil  its mission by assigning 
directly to this organization.


Fernando





___
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] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Remove Circuit Requirement

Mike, please refrain from saying that everything people say in this list 
against your ideas or interests is "ad hominem".

Chris points are perfectly valid and reasonable, but instead each and 
every time you face an message that you dislike in a discussion your may 
have interest you find a way to accuse others to use "ad hominem" 
arguments. Every time !
Different people have put different points in order to not support this 
proposal technically or not, most of these points make a fair amount of 
sense and there is nothing wrong to mention the interest certain parts 
of community as brokers have in these questions  as something isolated 
that not necessary benefit the community as a point to show the proposal 
may not be good to advance. Let people understand how they prefer and 
form their own opinion instead of everytime someone mentioned the word 
"broker" you get offended.

Some Brokers have been doing a good work in facilitating move of cold 
resources in the transfer market according to current policies from most 
RIRs, but unfortunately there have been situations where they seem to 
have been involved in controversial situations so it is fair for members 
of the community to look from a different perspective from anything 
proposed by a representative of this class and wish to scrutinize the 
matter more in deep.

Therefore don't get offended too quickly and try to focus on discussing 
the merit of the proposal because trying to clash with everyone that 
speaks out their opposition to a proposal will not make any good to 
advance it.

Regards
Fernando

On 21/09/2021 19:48, Mike Burns wrote:

Hi Chris,

Not sure how experienced you are with this, but this proposal has only 
been out for a few hours and any talk about "keeping it alive" is a 
tad early.

Also, you might brush up on the concept of ad hominem. It means 
against the person(s). It could be only brokers who support a policy 
and if there are no valid objections, that support should carry the day.

Now, do you have any objections that you would care to share, other 
than your original one (which I think Owen dispensed with)?

Regards,
Mike

 On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 18:37:43 -0400 *Chris Woodfield 
* wrote 

> On Sep 21, 2021, at 2:47 PM, Mike Burns mailto:m...@iptrading.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Noah,
>
> Thanks for your thoughts, my replies are inline.
>
> “Transfers are generally a prerogative of brokers who don't
necessarily provide any form of network services. It does make
sense for a broker to defend this model.”
>
> Noah that is a meaningless ad hominem, every transfer has a
recipient.
>

You are not incorrect here - it takes two to tango, so to speak.
And brokers are an important segment of the ARIN community, to the
extent that representatives of IP brokers have been elected to the
ARIN AC.

That said, one of the requirements for a Draft Policy to move
forward to an RDP is, per section 4.3:, "Changes to policy must be
shown to have a strong level of support in the community in order
to be adopted.” Reading the replies to this thread so far, the
only community members that have voiced support for this proposal
have been representatives of IP brokers. Correct me if I’ve missed
any, but I see zero statements of support so far from members of
any other segment of the ARIN community.

I would be very surprised if the AC would advance to RDP a policy
proposal that has support of only one segment of the community,
and as far as I can tell, universal opposition from those who are
not in that segment. If you are an operator, ISP, or content
provider who would benefit from this, I would recommend that you
speak up in order to keep this proposal alive.

Thanks,

-Chris

>
> ___
> 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

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Remove Circuit Requirement

Well, it seems that leasing practices are not that popular among 
community and tentatives to change the rules to make it easier or more 
soft to those who focus on these practices will not be something that 
may happen anytime soon.
So despite what some people say that "That´s a normal practice we cannot 
go back and have to accept because is already done" is not exactly like 
that.


We should actually endeavor to have good policies that make sure 
resources go to those who *really* have justification even if that 
involves a transfer via the market, but the important point is that the 
the relationship remains directly between the organization and ARIN and 
not with an intermediary in the middle.


Fernando

Em 21/09/2021 16:25, Isaiah Olson escreveu:
I am opposed to this proposal and would in fact like to see a policy 
proposal that strengthens the requirement to provide actual network 
services in order to receive additional address space. I agree that 
the current policy is unclear and possibly causing confusion for ARIN 
staff processing transfers when leasing is involved, and that updating 
it to prevent abuse of resources without affecting operational 
networks is a complex task. Despite the difficulty, I hope the 
community can converge on a proposal to that end. Questions of fig 
leaves and fraudulent intent are best left to the courts to interpret, 
but there cannot be accountability for fraud without clear policy.


In relation to this particular proposal, I would ask the community to 
consider the consequences of implementation. Some have suggested that 
the current policy can be evaded with simple "fig leaves" to present 
the illusion of the provision of network services. I am not so sure. 
Under the current policy, I would certainly not be comfortable 
requesting an additional /23 or /22 from the waiting list for "VPN 
Services" and proceeding to lease that space out to be announced 
elsewhere while maintaining a VPN link for appearances. If this policy 
were to be adopted, there would be absolutely nothing fraudulent about 
requesting a /22 for the purposes of leasing it to be announced on 
completely unrelated networks. Given the dozens of emails that I have 
received in the last several months offering to buy or lease my 
current IPv4 block, I am confident that I could immediately find 
lessees and be ready to request additional space from ARIN as soon as 
the six month waiting period has expired. Further, as it has been 
recently pointed out, this economies of scale only get better as you 
obtain more and more space, as my fees would cap out quickly at 
$2000/year in around two years which is easily subsidized with the 
leasing revenue from 4,096+ addresses. I am uncomfortable with the 
idea that anyone with the time to set up a corporation whose business 
model is "holding IPv4 resources and leasing them out" could 
effectively loot the waiting list for thousands of addresses in a 
couple short years. Given the current price explosion in the IPv4 
transfer market, I feel that this risk posed by this proposal to the 
integrity of the waiting list is very tangible. Additionally, basic 
economics of supply and demand show that opening up the transfer 
market for speculation and investment without requiring even the 
appearance of an operational network has the potential to cause prices 
to skyrocket to even more absurd levels.


Lastly, I also agree with others that the actual proposed policy 
language is flawed, "users of the network" is incredibly vague and 
it's unclear whether "network" refers to the Internet shared resource 
as a whole (global DFZ) or any network.


Isaiah Olson
Olson Tech, LLC


Policy statement:


Replace


“2.4. Local Internet Registry (LIR) A Local Internet Registry (LIR) 
is an IR that primarily assigns address space to the users of the 
network services that it provides. LIRs are generally Internet 
Service Providers (ISPs), whose customers are primarily end users and 
possibly other ISPs.”



with


“2.4. Local Internet Registry (LIR) A Local Internet Registry (LIR) 
is an IR that primarily assigns address space to users of the 
network. LIRs are generally Internet Service Providers (ISPs), whose 
customers are primarily end users and possibly other ISPs.”


___
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] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Remove Circuit Requirement

Owen, you seem lately to be endeavoring tireless to make IP leasing 
something normal and acceptable to most scenarios and make some weird 
reading of the rules (not just in this RIR) to justify this view (your 
own view that fortunately doesn't seem to match most of others) that IP 
leasing and fine and is allowed freely while that is not always the 
case. There have been different occasions where you stated that some 
practices are "100%" which seems to be more your own personal reading 
than what it really is. A recent discussion between your and John showed 
that some of your twisted words don't necessary correspond to how ARIN 
understands and interprets the current policies.


Also you have been repeating endlessly that LIRs lease IP addresses. I 
never heard people using this analogy to try to justify the bad IP 
leasing practices that is done by those who are currently holding large 
amount of unused address. What LIRs charge when they allocate IP 
addresses to their **directly connected customers** is very different 
from those IP leasing practices from n organization that doesn't build 
any Internet infrastructure.


While your a entitled to your different and preferred or business views 
it is important to make it clear that some of them are not "that 100%" 
correspondent to reality.


Fernando

Em 21/09/2021 15:14, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML escreveu:



On Sep 21, 2021, at 10:31 , Jon Lewis  wrote:

On Tue, 21 Sep 2021, William Herrin wrote:


On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 8:07 AM ARIN  wrote:

Current ARIN policy prevents the use of leased-out addresses as evidence of 
utilization.

OPPOSE.

Independent use of LIR-assigned addresses in BGP should be
discouraged. It pollutes the BGP table by requiring disaggregation of
neighboring addresses which might otherwise be efficiently routable.

Also unclear why we should pretend that LIRs do a better job enforcing
ARIN policy on address registrants than ARIN itself does. A LIR
leasing arrangement delegates that responsibility from ARIN without,
to my view, any good cause.

Also apposed [and very confused].  Is this some kind of mistake or did 
ARIN-prop-302 [to which I am apposed], which suggested a small edit to NRPM 2.4, 
removing the language that suggested some connection between LIR->end user IP 
assignment and network services provided by the LIR, somehow morph into changes to 
8.x affecting the transfer of number resources?

Section 2 defines terms.

If you change the definition of a term that section 8 depends on, it likely has 
policy implications for the application of section 8.

This change to section 2 would have implications for (at least) sections 4, 
possibly 5, 6, and 8 as currently written.


ARIN-prop-302 seems to be an attempt to legitimize the practice of leasing IP 
space, which seems to me has been a grey area, at least not supported by the 
current definition of LIR in 2.4.

That’s exactly what it is. An attempt to recognize that leasing occurs, is 
normal every day practice, and treat it accordingly.

If you are opposed to this, then I suggest that someone should probably draft 
language that tightens up ARIN’s current tolerance of leasing as a secondary 
use for address after they have been used
for some primary purpose that involves connectivity.

I’ll also point out that current policy does allow for one to:
1.  Obtain an aggregate (e.g. X.Y.0.0/16)
2.  Announce aggregate
3.  Lease chunks of aggregate to customers over GRE tunnels.

100% legitimate.

4.  Allow customer to announce more specific chunk to other 
providers over actual circuits.
5.  Prepend the heck out of the aggregate announcement just in case.

100% legitimate under current policy.

100% valid to justify the need for additional addresses once all addresses are 
used in this fashion.

When you decide your business is large enough, you are free to turn off the 
tunnels if you wish, the fig leaf is no longer required under current policy.

This proposal eliminates the need for the fig leaf in the first place.


Does anyone else find it odd that "2. Definitions" defines end-user and LIR, 
but not ISP?  2.4 does say that LIRs are generally ISPs.  When are they not ISPs, and 
when they're not ISPs, what are they?

A variety of other things:
Cloud service providers
Datacenter providers
Web Hosting providers
VPS providers
VPN Services

The term ISP is ambiguous and does not cover all cases where an organization 
needs to be able to issue addresses to customers and register those
reallocations and reassignments, so the term LIR came into existence.

LIR is a specific term meaning an organization that issues addresses to 
customers for use in their networks. Admittedly, in most cases, LIR is somewhat
synonymous with ISP in that the relationship between an LIR and its customers 
usually also involves the LIR providing connectivity to the customer in
some form or other. This

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Remove Circuit Requirement


Em 21/09/2021 14:22, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML escreveu:
This policy doesn’t affect that… Leasing of address space you already 
have is permitted under current policy and cannot be grounds for 
revocation of address space.


The change in this policy proposal is not to permit or deny leasing, 
but to permit leased addresses to be considered utilized for purposes 
of determining eligibility for additional address acquisition.


Which makes this proposal even worst and not beneficial to anyone except 
to those who profit from these leases.
How on earth can leased addresses be considered something normal or 
acceptable to justify for additional address acquisition ? This is so 
out of mind that it is hard to understand how can this be even proposed.


Fernando



Owen


On Sep 21, 2021, at 08:22 , Chris Woodfield > wrote:


Writing in opposition. I do not support the practice of leasing IP 
address resources. Organizations who have received larger amounts of 
IP address space than what they are efficiently utilizing are free to 
relieve themselves of their excess space via the transfer market.


Thanks,

-Chris

On Sep 21, 2021, at 8:06 AM, ARIN > wrote:


On 16 September 2021, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted 
"ARIN-prop-302: Remove Circuit Requirement " as a Draft Policy.

Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2021_6/ 



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
Senior Policy Analyst
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Remove Circuit Requirement

Problem Statement:
Current ARIN policy prevents the use of leased-out addresses as 
evidence of utilization.

Policy statement:
Replace
“2.4. Local Internet Registry (LIR) A Local Internet Registry (LIR) 
is an IR that primarily assigns address space to the users of the 
network services that it provides. LIRs are generally Internet 
Service Providers (ISPs), whose customers are primarily end users 
and possibly other ISPs.”

with
“2.4. Local Internet Registry (LIR) A Local Internet Registry (LIR) 
is an IR that primarily assigns address space to users of the 
network. LIRs are generally Internet Service Providers (ISPs), whose 
customers are primarily end users and possibly other ISPs.”

Timetable for implementation: Immediate
___
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 contacti...@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.
___
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-2021-6: Remove Circuit Requirement