Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates
Did you follow the instructions at the end of *every* email from this list for how to remove yourself? Did you follow the instructions to contact i...@arin.net if you have problems doing that? Mark > On 27 Oct 2023, at 01:39, Olerato Manyaapelo > wrote: > > How many times must I ask you guys to remove me from your mailing lists? I am > not interested in receiving these emails. > C.O Manyaapelo > > > On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 at 16:22, William Herrin wrote: > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 6:58 AM Mike Burns wrote: > > And I agree with Fernando that affiliations or connections to > > IP brokers would be a point in their favor considering they > > are the people distributing IPv4 addresses these days. > > Hi Mike, > > Before considering someone affiliated with an address broker for an > ARIN position, I'd want them to demonstrate that they recognize the > conflict of interest that's likely to pose and have a well conceived > plan for addressing it. > > Conflict of interest corrupts even the best intentioned. I once quit a > job I liked because despite his good intentions my boss unsuccessfully > managed his conflict of interest. It placed me in a position where I > couldn't properly oversee the prime vendor. So I'm sensitive to > conflicts of interest. > > 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. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org ___ 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
ROAs are supposed to turtle down. In the end ISPs will end up signing ROAs on individual DHCP leases allowing packets from these addresses permitted through other ISPs BCP39 filters when customers are multi-homed. We aren’t at this stage yet but that is the future we all should be working too. -- Mark Andrews > On 24 Jun 2023, at 13:07, Fernando Frediani wrote: > > > 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. ___ 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] Opinions.. Layer Host aka Global Frag, Higher level approaches
I suspect that a lot of the lack of replies is that the email with a list of spam domains didn’t make it through spam filters. The repeated sending of the list, by not trimming replies, triggered mailman’s automatic unsubscription processes due to multiple messages being rejected. I suspect many members of the list got unsubscribed as a side effect. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org ___ 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
I suspect so but it would require a grace period before being added. That said one would need to ask who will use the feed. It’s been many years since I’ve configured a router. -- Mark Andrews > On 7 Aug 2022, at 09:15, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > I love the sentiment but smaller ISP's may not have routers with the > horsepower for extensive filters. > > Let me ask you this, Mark: > > Would it be of value if ARIN maintained a list of networks of entities that > fail to keep their POC's current? In a format that would be easy to write a > script to parse into route filters? > > Ted > >> On 8/6/2022 3:47 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: >> And if you feel like it you can filter all announcements for those entities >> that fail to keep their POCs current. If enough do that then there will be >> back pressure to cause the entity to rectify the situation if they are using >> the addresses publically. Also the addresses can’t be used by scammers if >> they are filtered. If you do this update your filters quickly on POCs being >> updated. > ___ > 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
And if you feel like it you can filter all announcements for those entities that fail to keep their POCs current. If enough do that then there will be back pressure to cause the entity to rectify the situation if they are using the addresses publically. Also the addresses can’t be used by scammers if they are filtered. If you do this update your filters quickly on POCs being updated. -- Mark Andrews > On 7 Aug 2022, at 06:27, Steven Ryerse wrote: > > The many posts to the PPML reflect your desire to somehow reclaim Legacy > IPv4 space that isn't being used or space that might have been acquired in a > way that is deemed unethical or possibly worse. As you may know, these > subjects have been discussed many many times ad nauseum in this PPML since > the time ARIN was formed. ARIN does pursue transactions that are reported as > fraudulent as evidenced by the multiple press releases dealing with fraud and > the courts - that have been described in press releases in recent years > shared on the PPML - so it appears the desire to follow up such reports is > already a function that ARIN pursues when appropriate. I've seen each press > release describing these cases have been applauded by many in this community > and I applaud them as well. > > With all due respect, as for reclaiming Legacy blocks - some of those > original Class A blocks (/8's) were awarded to 800 pound gorillas with > unlimited deep pockets to pay their on-staff attorneys. I haven’t looked at > the list lately but there were organizations like AT, IBM, Ford and even > the Department of Defense had at least two /8’s - and if I recall Great > Britain was awarded two /8’s back then. These all were legacy blocks awarded > in the very early 90’s when the internet was new and the National Science > Foundation was trying to gain acceptance of wider usage of the fledgling > Internet. > > So at least some of these gorillas still have their blocks and I haven’t > researched it, but at least some have never signed any legal agreement with > ARIN since they got these blocks before ARIN existed - and they got them > without any legalese written agreements that pertained to the blocks assigned > to them. > > So if ARIN decided one day they are going to go after all of these blocks > some of which are “unused” ipv4 blocks, then they would likely end up in > court against an army of talented attorneys. This is not a desirable nor a > positive situation for ARIN to be in. > > ARIN has to treat all legacy holders the same whether they were Class A or > Class B or Class C. So I would support ARIN contacting all legacy holders in > a positive manner that have not signed an agreement to see if any would > voluntarily release unused resources and/or sign an agreement. The key words > in the last sentence is voluntary and positive. However trying to take back > any legacy resources by force without a signed ARIN agreement in place, or > without the permission of the organization or individual the resources were > awarded to doesn't make practical sense - and is fraught with possible > negative consequences for ARIN. > > For the ARIN region, the only realistic way to change the dynamics and > relationship between ARIN and Legacy holders without agreements would be for > the US Congress to act, and this is possible but unlikely. > > Others have described the situation of Legacy Holders in the PPML as a horse > that has already left the barn, and adding the fact that these 800 pound > gorillas exist with their army of attorneys, short of an act of the US > Congress - that horse isn't ever going back into the barn. Better we as a > community should focus on moving the Internet forward in a positive manner > than get caught up with trying to somehow chase a horse we can never catch. > ARIN can of course try and contact legacy holders that are reported as > "Deceased" but if they cannot reach anyone for confirmation then we will all > just have to live with that block being out of usage. Those "deceased" > blocks are not causing our organization or our customers any problems we > can't overcome ourselves so we don't spend any time worrying about them. I > realize the cost of IPv4 addresses keeps going up, but just as we pass along > the cost of gasoline to our customers, we pass the cost of IPv4 addresses on > to them as well as a cost of conducting business. > > I'm not in favor of chasing horse we can't catch. My two cents. > > > Steven Ryerse > President & CEO > > srye...@eclipse-networks.com | 770.399.9099 ext. 502 > 100 Ashford Center North | Suite 110 | Atlanta, Georgia 30338 > > > > -Original Message- > Fro
Re: [arin-ppml] Change of Use and ARIN (was: Re: AFRINIC And The Stability Of The Internet Number Registry System)
.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. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org ___ 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-2020-2: Grandfathering of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16
> On 16 Jan 2021, at 03:41, Jay Wendelin wrote: > > You would have to ask the ISP’s themselves. My Schools will not want to be > involved at all nor will we want to implement new and expensive technologies > for ip6. Why do you think that it would be expensive? Also what makes you think IPv6 is new? All the children in your schools are younger than IPv6. If IPv6 could legally drink in every state in the US if it was a person. I’ve been using IPv6 at home for 18 years now. I’ve been working on IPv6 equipment for over 2 decades now. IPv6 isn’t “new”. Much of your equipment already supports IPv6 and has done for well over a decade now. I would bet that all of the computers (desktop and laptop) already support IPv6. All your tablet computers will. All your smart phones do. What may not is “smart” TVs and “smart” whiteboards. Unfortunately they don’t come from forward thinking manufactures. Your router may or may not support it. It really depends on its age and if it cost more than USD50. It doesn’t cost your ISP anymore to deliver IPv6 along side IPv4. ISPs get IPv6 addresses for next to nothing. A /48 is about a cent a year with a /32 allocation USD1000 (support ~65000 customers) and only gets cheap on a per customer basis with larger allocations. This is much cheaper than IPv4 is on a per customer basis. RIRs also only charge the maximum of the IPv4, IPv6 allocation costs so for most ISPs they can get IPv6 addresses to $0. https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/ Mark > > Jay Wendelin > Chief Information Officer > Cell: 309-657-5303 > j...@poweredbystl.com > > > > From: Fernando Frediani > Date: Friday, January 15, 2021 at 10:36 AM > To: Jay Wendelin > Cc: arin-ppml > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of > Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16 > > WARNING: This message originated from outside of the organization. Please do > not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source of this > email and can ensure the content is safe. > > Didn't these ISPs in 2021 not invest IPv6 deployment and good CGNAT > techniques and they rely only on keep getting more addresses from ARIN ? > > Fernando > > On Fri, 15 Jan 2021, 13:29 Jay Wendelin, wrote: > I support this petition, I have many Public School Clients that rely on their > ISP’s to manage and offer IP address. > > Jay Wendelin > CIO > STL/BTS > > > Jay Wendelin > Chief Information Officer > Cell: 309-657-5303 > j...@poweredbystl.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. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org ___ 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] Last Call - Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Reinstatement of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16
> On 23 Oct 2020, at 15:21, Michael Peddemors wrote: > > On 2020-10-22 8:35 a.m., hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: >> It is wrong to give this space to those who are making no effort to move to >> IPv6, which is the clear future of the Internet. > > Oh, I am going to be called a troll for this.. > > But seriously? First of all there are those who have no business need to move > to IPv6, where IPv4 is all they ever will need, so you can understand that it > will be low on their priority list…. If you send IP packets over the Internet you have a business need for IPv6. IPv6-only ISPs *will* turn off IPv6 to IPv4 gateways at some point as it costs additional $$ to run them. They will look at the amount of traffic going through them compared to the IPv6 traffic that is by passing them and say “Time to turn it off. If people still need it they can get it from $provider-on-the-net.” Most of the customer won’t bother configuring a IPv6 to IPv4 gateway and those business that failed to move to IPv6 will go belly up. > And (wait for it) .. what emperical evidence do we have that IPv6 is the > clear future of the internet.. after .. (how many years has this been > pushed?) .. all this time, it STILL is not universally adopted, which in > itself says it is NOT the 'clear future’.. Universal adoption has never been a prerequisite for something the be the ‘clear future’. Name one thing that was universally adopted at the point in time people first said it was the ‘clear future’. I can’t come up with anything in all of history. Fire wasn’t. Bonze wasn’t. Iron wasn’t. Steel wasn’t. The wheel wasn’t. Steam wasn’t. Electricity wasn’t. IPv4 wasn’t. Each of these technologies was however the ‘clear future’ at some point in time well before universal adoption occurred. IPv6 isn’t a revolutional change, its a evolutional change. Evolutional changes just take longer to occur but they do happen. > Me, (okay, this is after a beer or two tonight) I was just having a > discussion with some people the other night, and we were discussing the idea > that a new protocol might even roll out at this rate before IPv6 is > universally adopted… It might, but unless it is a revolutional change it will take longer to deploy than IPv6 has. > I think that while ARIN can be a proponent of moving to IPv6, it still has a > responsibility to listen to those who have no need for this. The idea of > penalizing IPv4 allocations, because they don't believe in IPv6, seems .. > well... I don't think it serves the community properly. > > (BTW, I am NOT an IPv6 hater, but the we do need to allow for differing > opinions in order for ARIN to truly represent all stake holders, lest we > fragment the community) > > > -- > "Catch the Magic of Linux..." > > Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc. > Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic > A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca > "LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd. > > 604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada > > This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended > solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. > Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely > those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company. > ___ > 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. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org ___ 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-2019-19 Require IPv6 before receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers
> On 21 Jan 2020, at 03:19, Michel Py > wrote: > >> Andrew Kirch wrote : >> I post here very rarely to not at all but your assertion that "IPv6 >> is leveling off" ranges somewhere between insane and drug-addled. >> https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html > > Zoom the graph between July 2019 and today and tell us which drug it is you > are taking that shows you any growth for the last 6 or 7 months. Must be the > good stuff. Shrooms ? First peak in July 29.41% - Jan 18 30.39%. Still going up. If you look at the data set there have been plenty of times when a 6 month periods "looks like" they have flattened off but if you look at longer periods, a year or more, you see a steady increase up to and including today. Without bias in the clients to prefer IPv6 that graph should asymptote to 50% at 100% dual stack. With 100% bias it should asymptote to 100% at 100% dual stack. Neither of those positions represent reality of the client bias though it is fairly close to 100%. IPv6 growth also requires almost every piece in the path to have been upgraded to support IPv6. It requires the clients to support IPv6. It requires the CPE router to support IPv6. It requires the ISP to turn on IPv6. Each of those happen at different rates. My laptops have supported IPv6 for the last 20 years. My TVs don’t. The Apple TV box does. The network printer supports IPv6. The mobile phones support IPv6. Now depending upon which box I happen to be using at a given time I will appear to be a IPv6 household or not. It may be another 10 years before all my devices are IPv6 capable but it will come. My ISP still doesn’t support IPv6 (I use a tunnel to HE) but they are working on it, according to my mate who works with them. The CPE’s they ship support IPv6, they just haven’t turned it on at their end. When they do that will be several million more IPv6 capable households. At the moment my ISP is transitioning from their own DOCSIS network + ADSL wholesaled from Telstra to the NBN (wholesaled DOCSIS (in my case) / FTTH / VSDL / FTTC). One transition at a time. Mark > 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 contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org ___ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers
> On 12 Nov 2019, at 10:12, Scott Leibrand wrote: > > I think you underestimate the complexity of enterprise networking, and the > relative lack of skill of the folks managing most enterprise networks, > largely due to the fact that they can't enforce at-scale standardization as > consumer networks do (so they can't just hire a small number of software > architects to manage an entire network via automation). I know one can turn on IPv6 along side IPv4 and gradually move stuff across to supporting both IPv4 and IPv6. I know that HTTP, SMTP and DNS servers have supported IPv6 for over 2 decades. DHCP servers have supported IPv6 nearly as long. I know firewalls have supported IPv6 for over 2 decades now. I know Windows has supported IPv6 since Windows XP. I know Apple, Oracle (Sun), VMS, Linux, … have supported IPv6 as long if not longer. I know turning on IPv6 doesn’t mean turning off IPv4. Most CDN’s support IPv6 these days as well and you don’t have to be running IPv6 in house to project a IPv6 presence on the net. Routers have supported IPv6 for decades as well though not at the $50 mark until recently. Turning on IPv6 isn’t hard even if most it the plant isn’t using it. The front office can definitely use it just like homes use it today. Getting to the state where you are ready to go IPv6-only is hard as it requires every piece of equipment to support IPv6, but don’t confuse the two. > When it comes down to making a decision about whether to implement IPv6, the > decision is usually "build vs. buy" - "build" a new network, new server > infrastructure, etc., vs. "buy" more IPv4 addresses. On residential networks, > they can "build" at a sufficient scale to be cheaper than "buying". On > enterprise networks, the "buy" option is usually cheaper (and far less risky > to the revenue-generating portions of the business). In many cases it is just enable. > There are ways to help change that cost/benefit tradeoff, but they involve > solving hard problems of both the technical and organizational variety. This > policy proposal does nothing to address them. > > -Scott > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 2:36 PM Mark Andrews wrote: > Actually the arrogance of enterprises in not turning on IPv6 is astounding. > > Their customers are being forced to share IP addresses not only between their > own machines but between machines from different customers because they can’t > take the simple step of turning on IPv6 on their servers. No one else can > do that but them. > > The world ran out if IPv4 address in 1995. Stop gaps have kept IPv4 going > since > then and they are getting worse. 20 years to plan to turn on IPv6 and they > still > say they need more time. Thats mega arrogance for you. > > Mark > > > On 8 Nov 2019, at 12:08, Michel Py > > wrote: > > > > Hi Jordi, > > > >> I'm not sure if this is a love or a war declaration ... below ... > > > > This is war, make no mistake. > > > >> In fact, we should aim, as a community (RIRs, IETF, ICANN), to do as much > >> as we can to start sunseting IPv4 now. > > > > This is why we are at war. In 20 years, you have not yet captured 10% of > > the enterprise market and you are talking about sunset ? > > Your arrogance is mind-boggling. You are fighting for the survival of IPv6. > > You had your shot at it. For 20 years. Now want to kill my ecosystem, I > > will thrown anything I have at yours. No matter how dirty it is. No matter > > how much people will hate me. Not being nice anymore. > > > > 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 contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. > > -- > Mark Andrews, ISC > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org > > _______ > 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. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org ___ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers
Actually the arrogance of enterprises in not turning on IPv6 is astounding. Their customers are being forced to share IP addresses not only between their own machines but between machines from different customers because they can’t take the simple step of turning on IPv6 on their servers. No one else can do that but them. The world ran out if IPv4 address in 1995. Stop gaps have kept IPv4 going since then and they are getting worse. 20 years to plan to turn on IPv6 and they still say they need more time. Thats mega arrogance for you. Mark > On 8 Nov 2019, at 12:08, Michel Py wrote: > > Hi Jordi, > >> I'm not sure if this is a love or a war declaration ... below ... > > This is war, make no mistake. > >> In fact, we should aim, as a community (RIRs, IETF, ICANN), to do as much as >> we can to start sunseting IPv4 now. > > This is why we are at war. In 20 years, you have not yet captured 10% of the > enterprise market and you are talking about sunset ? > Your arrogance is mind-boggling. You are fighting for the survival of IPv6. > You had your shot at it. For 20 years. Now want to kill my ecosystem, I will > thrown anything I have at yours. No matter how dirty it is. No matter how > much people will hate me. Not being nice anymore. > > 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 contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org ___ 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] Solving the squatting problem
> On 17 May 2019, at 12:53 pm, Michel Py > wrote: > >> Mark Andrews wrote : >> 240/4 isn’t ARIN’s to allocate or do you think ARIN should squat on the >> space? :-) > > I was trying to find a more politically correct way to say it ;-) > Look, you give me lemons, I make lemonade. > > How did we call that, when ARIN started to allocate IPv6 PI when no such > thing existed ? There was quite a bit of artistic license taken then. IPv6 PI > was not ARIN to allocate either. The PI space came from the space ARIN had for PA assignments. It was sub-allocating space that had been allocated to it. The purpose of the allocation changed. >> David Farmer wrote : >> I suppose we could try a global policy that would have to pass in all 5 RIRs >> requesting IANA >> and the IETF to allocate 240/4 for Private Use. If that were to actually >> occur, it seems >> difficult for the IETF to ignore such a request. While on the other hand, >> I'm not sure there >> would be a consensus within the ARIN community, let alone the other RIRs, to >> do such a thing anyway. > > There is definitely something about tilting at a windmill here; I'm just > trying to think out of the box. > We have a problem with some ARIN members using address space that has been > allocated to other ARIN members and we know it. > I think there will be a consensus that ARIN has absolutely no stick to make > them stop, so what we need is a carrot. > Mine is not very palatable, but maybe it would be more attractive to ARIN > members who squat by providing them an exit than to the IETF. > > Do you have a better suggestion ? The squatting issue is new, what does ARIN > do about it ? Squatting has been going on for as long as IPv4 has existed. There have always been people not wanting to do paperwork to get space. Comcast, Microsoft, Facebook all dealt with not having enough IPv4 for their internal purposes. They all moved or are moving to IPv6-only for internal communications. For the machines that need to talk to the IPv4 Internet they use host based IPv4aas mechanisms. You don’t even need to have IPv6 upstream links. You can translate all the outbound traffic to IPv4. DS-Lite on the host or host based 464XLAT both work for this purpose. There are other mechanisms that work at the host level as well. This isn’t a problem ARIN needs to solve. >> Nevertheless, there is no way for ARIN to unilaterally allocate 240/4 for >> any purpose. > > I beg to disagree. It could be an experimental purpose. Sounds like the > product of buffalo rumination, but policy is sometimes about untold nuances. > > Michel. > -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org ___ 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] Solving the squatting problem
240/4 isn’t ARIN’s to allocate or do you think ARIN should squat on the space? :-) > On 17 May 2019, at 11:48 am, Michel Py > wrote: > >> Joe Provo wrote : >> By all means, go tilt at the class e windmill if you like; >> it will only be the fourth time or so, I can't recall. > > I was trying to convince Owen to co-author with me ;-) > >> But it isn't anything for ARIN policy, so feel free to take it up at the >> IETF... > > I would not waste more time there. > ARIN is the entity having the squatting problem : we have members who use the > resources of another member and they should not. > > There is precedent, Owen will remember that I'm sure. During the early days, > there was no IPv6 multi-homing solution. The RIRs, not the IETF, started to > allocate IPv6 PI addresses to organizations who wanted to multi-home, while > there was no such thing as IPv6 PI. I remember that the IETF was not happy > with that, but it worked : since then, we have IPv6 multi-homing, the good > old way that works, not any of the dirty hacks that were on the table at the > time. > > ARIN allocates 240/4 for private unicast to ARIN members. > Maybe we could convince Geoff and APNIC to try the alternative way. > Long shot, I know. > > Owen, you allow your vision of "all IPv6" to cloud your judgment. Turning > IPv4 off is not going to happen for decades. > > 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 contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org ___ 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] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation
> On 2 May 2019, at 11:35 pm, Jimmy Hess wrote: > > There is no role, for example, for a government or anyone else to > come tell ATT, > Verizon, Level3, etc, what they are and are not allowed to put or have > in their routing tables, and furthermore, which internet standards > they have to support, > (outside the scope of contracts they may have for services provided by > their network). Actually, I believe if push came to shove and someone took the matter to court it would be found that deliberately or repeatedly advertising someones else’s routes without permission is an offence. It amounts to tortuous interference in another’s business. And yes, it is the government’s job, via the court system, to police this. I’m not a lawyer and I don’t know if there is any case law on this yet but it will come if it is not their already. So yes, the government can tell you want you can and can’t put in your routers. You just don’t want them to have to do that because it becomes very expensive for you went they decide they have to. Most people here don’t want that to happen so they act responsibly. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org ___ 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 discontinuing DNSSEC capability to legacy holders
> On 5 Oct 2018, at 3:52 pm, David Farmer wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 based on the > at 1:15 PM Bill Woodcock wrote: > > On Oct 4, 2018, at 11:10 AM, John Curran wrote: > > ARIN had been inconsistent in our approach to ... DNSSEC services over the > > years. > > There is no room for inconsistency in the application of security. > > You’re entirely missing Michael’s point. DNSSEC is not a _treat_ that you > dangle in front of universities, it’s an operational requirement for _the > whole Internet_, of which your paying members are constituents. You’re > denying _me_ the ability to use DNSSEC to validate addresses any time you > prevent anyone from registering a DS record. > > -Bill > > This is a complicated problem. DNSsec is about identity and is not merely a > technical protocol. It requires that trust is built and maintained between > the entities in the DNS tree, this trust is structured heretically so that > everyone doesn't have to maintain trust with everyone else. Through this > heretical structure, trust is built through validating and certifying the > parties involved and this trust is then legally enshrined in contracts > between the entities involved. The fact that the other parties in the tree > have contracted with the entity higher in the tree, in this case, ARIN, is > why you can trust them. Without those contracts, there is no way to enforce > consequences for misbehavior and the trust will eventually be broken. The > contracts are the basis for the trust needed by the system and without this > trust, there is no need for the DNSsec protocol. If ARIN will update/add NS records then they should update/ns DS records. THERE IS ZERO DIFFERENCE IN THE TRUST REQUIRED. DNSSEC does not magically require that you need to do more diligence before making a change. If ARIN is willing to change NS records then whatever requirements they have to permit that change is ALL they should need to permit DS records to be changed. > ARIN has to have contracts with all entities participating in DNSSec and RPKI > through it for the schemes to work, even that may not be enough to for these > schemes to work, but without that there is no way for these schemes to work. > > The financial issues are completely separate from why contracts are > necessary. However, life sure is easier when everyone is paying their fair > share, but in this case, I don't think fair needs to be an equal share. > > Thanks. > -- > === > David Farmer Email:far...@umn.edu > Networking & Telecommunication Services > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SEPhone: 612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 > === > ___ > ARIN-PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org ___ 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.
