Re: [arin-ppml] Open petition for Arin 2020-2

[Rudolph Daniel]

I support the petition.

RD

On Thu, 14 Jan 2021, 9:46 AM ,  wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
> arin-ppml@arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Open Petition for ARIN-2020-2 (Annette Ogden)
>2. Re: Open Petition for ARIN-2020-2 (Martin Hannigan)
>3. Re: Open Petition for ARIN-2020-2 (Tom Fantacone)
>4. Open Petition for ARIN-2020-2 (Joe Caracci)
>5. Open Petition for ARIN-2020-2 (Blake Ozier)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 21:36:27 +
> From: Annette Ogden 
> To: "arin-ppml@arin.net" 
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Open Petition for ARIN-2020-2
> Message-ID:
> <
> dm6pr18mb3321ba6429dbc596512334659b...@dm6pr18mb3321.namprd18.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I support this petition.
>
> Annette Ogden
> Anderson Electric, Inc.
>
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20210113/a8efe4ca/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 17:20:04 -0500
> From: Martin Hannigan 
> To: "arin-ppml@arin.net" 
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Open Petition for ARIN-2020-2
> Message-ID:
> <
> camdxq5mi2hefbpbwk_u_csthoszxnoevhcngap8_+r0bps0...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Anyone else going to say it?
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 16:36 Annette Ogden <
> annet...@anderson-electric.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I support this petition.
> >
> >
> >
> > *Annette Ogden*
> >
> > Anderson Electric, Inc.
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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.
> >
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20210113/c8baa44c/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> --
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 17:31:10 -0500
> From: "Tom Fantacone" 
> To: hanni...@gmail.com, arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Open Petition for ARIN-2020-2
> Message-ID: 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>
> Well, since you asked, I do support the petition.
> Tom FantaconeIPTrading.com
>
> --- Original Message ---
> >From: Martin Hannigan[mailto:hanni...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 1/13/2021 5:20:04 PM
> To  : arin-ppml@arin.net
> Cc  :
> Subject : RE: Re: [arin-ppml] Open Petition for ARIN-2020-2
>
>
>
> Anyone else going to say it?
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 16:36 Annette Ogden <
> annet...@anderson-electric.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I support this petition.
>
> Annette Ogden
> Anderson Electric, Inc.
>
>
>
>
> ___
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20210113/4b5d8692/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> --
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 08:34:06 -0600
> From: Joe Caracci 
> To: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Open Petition for ARIN-2020-2
> Message-ID:
> <
> ca+d3g0batjxwts2+4mepqlya1pkrrscpzmnr-adtzowrhgx...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I support this petition.
>
> Joe Caracci
> CC Services Inc.
> Senior Network Engineer
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20210114/d3c3c071/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> --
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 14:45:44 +
> From: Blake Ozier 
> To: "arin-ppml@arin.net" 
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Open Petition for ARIN-2020-2
> Message-ID:
> <
> ch2pr13mb3703d3d3dd4693e161786cc1cc...@ch2pr13mb3703.namprd13.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16

[Rudolph Daniel]

Re:  IMHO, the problem is no longer one of IPv4 scarcity. Yes, IPv4 is
scarce, but that?s _NOT_ the real problem at this point. ( Owen)
In support of this opinion. Wholeheartedly! The lack of IPv6 adoption makes
IPv4 look like a narcissistic internet business disorder or NBD for short.
(tgif and stay safe !)

Rudi Daniel
*danielcharles consulting
*
1 784 430 9235
ict4d




On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 2:36 PM  wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
> arin-ppml@arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of Organizations
>   Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16 (Owen DeLong)
>2. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2020-5: Clarify and Update Requirements
>   for Allocations to Downstream Customers (Chris Woodfield)
>3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of Organizations
>   Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16 (Brian Jones)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 09:51:31 -0700
> From: Owen DeLong 
> To: Fernando Frediani 
> Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of
> Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of
> ARIN-2019-16
> Message-ID: <2ab74f92-069c-4d0c-b014-cc2b5db59...@delong.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;   charset=utf-8
>
> Let us be clear about this?
>
> IMHO, the problem is no longer one of IPv4 scarcity. Yes, IPv4 is scarce,
> but that?s _NOT_ the real problem at this point.
>
> The real problem today is lack of IPv6 deployment. If IPv6 were
> ubiquitously deployed as it should have been long ago, the
> scarcity of IPv4 would be utterly irrelevant.
>
> Owen
>
>
> > On Jul 17, 2020, at 09:01 , Fernando Frediani 
> wrote:
> >
> > What is the justification to give organization who already have some
> reasonable space to work with, more space in current times ?
> >
> > Everybody is suffering from the same problem of IPv4 scarcity and that
> affects all equally. If we have already a policy that limits on /20 it is
> for a reason, a fair reason by the way. So why are we going to bend it in
> this case in the other direction ?
> > I see this type of proposal privileging just a few rather than been
> equalized to all others.
> >
> > Therefore I keep opposed to it.
> >
> > Fernando
> >
> > On 17/07/2020 12:24, Steven Ryerse via ARIN-PPML wrote:
> >> +1
> >>
> >>
> >> Steven Ryerse
> >> President
> >>
> >> srye...@eclipse-networks.com | C: 770.656.1460
> >> 100 Ashford Center North | Suite 110 | Atlanta, Georgia 30338
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: ARIN-PPML  On Behalf Of Mike Burns
> >> Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 10:59 AM
> >> To: hostmas...@uneedus.com; arin-ppml@arin.net
> >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of
> Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16
> >>
> >> I support the policy as written and I do not believe we should
> prioritize small holders over large holders.
> >> Large holders pay higher fees but I don't see the rationale behind
> favoring small  holders on the wait list.
> >> All holders should be on equal footing, we never had a new-entrant
> reserve at ARIN and I think if that is something we want to do, it should
> be discussed openly and not inserted through the back door of waitlist
> policy.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Mike
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: ARIN-PPML  On Behalf Of
> hostmas...@uneedus.com
> >> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 7:59 AM
> >> To: arin-ppml@arin.net
> >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of
> Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16
> >>
> >> I am also against this proposal.
> >>
> >> If we allow holders of larger blocks back onto the list, we take away
> blocks that should go to smaller holders.
> >>
> >> The waiting list is NOT a lottery to be "won", and I think the policy
> should not change.
> >>
> >> Albert Erdmann
> >> Network Administrator
> >> Paradise On Line Inc.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, Andrew Dul wrote:
> >>
> >>> I do not support the reintroduction of organizations onto the
> >>> wait-list who were removed due to having existing address holdings
> >>> larger than a /20.  Being on the wait-list was never a guarantee that
> >>> you would receive space.  The AC had 

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: / Implementation of ARIN-2019-16

[Rudolph Daniel]

I am in support of the policy as written. However, what is the rationale
for /18 instead of /20 criteria?

Rudi Daniel
*danielcharles consulting
*
1 784 430 9235
ict4d




On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:21 PM  wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
> arin-ppml@arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re:  Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering ofOrganizations
>   Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16
>   (=?utf-8?B?SGF5ZWUgQm9raGFyaQ==?=)
>2. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of Organizations
>   Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16 (Mike Burns)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 12:15:45 -0400
> From: "=?utf-8?B?SGF5ZWUgQm9raGFyaQ==?=" 
> To: "=?utf-8?B?RmVybmFuZG8gRnJlZGlhbmk=?=" ,
> "=?utf-8?B?YXJpbi1wcG1s?=" 
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml]  Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering
> ofOrganizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of
> ARIN-2019-16
> Message-ID: <202007171215443079...@cronomagic.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="utf-8"
>
> Organizations in the waiting list went to ARIN's vetting process before
> they got into waiting list, so justification already exist,
>
> Regards
> Hayee Bokhari
> 514-341-1579 Ex 212
> 800-427-6012 Ex 212
> bokh...@cronomagic.com
> http://www.cronomagic.com
>
> >What is the justification to give organization who already have some
> >reasonable space to work with, more space in current times ?
> >
> >Everybody is suffering from the same problem of IPv4 scarcity and that
> >affects all equally. If we have already a policy that limits on /20 it
> >is for a reason, a fair reason by the way. So why are we going to bend
> >it in this case in the other direction ?
> >I see this type of proposal privileging just a few rather than been
> >equalized to all others.
> >
> >Therefore I keep opposed to it.
> >
> >Fernando
> >
> >On 17/07/2020 12:24, Steven Ryerse via ARIN-PPML wrote:
> >> +1
> >>
> >>
> >> Steven Ryerse
> >> President
> >>
> >> srye...@eclipse-networks.com | C: 770.656.1460
> >> 100 Ashford Center North | Suite 110 | Atlanta, Georgia 30338
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: ARIN-PPML  On Behalf Of Mike Burns
> >> Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 10:59 AM
> >> To: hostmas...@uneedus.com; arin-ppml@arin.net
> >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of
> Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16
> >>
> >> I support the policy as written and I do not believe we should
> prioritize small holders over large holders.
> >> Large holders pay higher fees but I don't see the rationale behind
> favoring small  holders on the wait list.
> >> All holders should be on equal footing, we never had a new-entrant
> reserve at ARIN and I think if that is something we want to do, it should
> be discussed openly and not inserted through the back door of waitlist
> policy.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Mike
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: ARIN-PPML  On Behalf Of
> hostmas...@uneedus.com
> >> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 7:59 AM
> >> To: arin-ppml@arin.net
> >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of
> Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16
> >>
> >> I am also against this proposal.
> >>
> >> If we allow holders of larger blocks back onto the list, we take away
> blocks that should go to smaller holders.
> >>
> >> The waiting list is NOT a lottery to be "won", and I think the policy
> should not change.
> >>
> >> Albert Erdmann
> >> Network Administrator
> >> Paradise On Line Inc.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, Andrew Dul wrote:
> >>
> >>> I do not support the reintroduction of organizations onto the
> >>> wait-list who were removed due to having existing address holdings
> >>> larger than a /20.? Being on the wait-list was never a guarantee that
> >>> you would receive space.? The AC had to balance the various elements
> >>> of
> >> block size and organizations who would be eligible to receive space
> under the updated policy and we were aware that the rules as implemented
> would prevent some organizations on the wait-list from receiving blocks
> going forward.
> >>> Speaking only for myself, not the AC
> >>>
> >>> Andrew
> >>>
> >>> On 6/19/2020 11:25 AM, Alyssa Moore wrote:
> 

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Reverted to Draft Policy - Draft Policy ARIN-2019-1: Clarify Section 4 IPv4 Request Requirements

[Rudolph Daniel]

I support the Policy Proposal and addition.

Rudi Daniel
*danielcharles consulting
*
1 784 430 9235
ict4d




On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 11:50 AM  wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
> arin-ppml@arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Revised and Reverted to Draft Policy - Draft Policy
>   ARIN-2019-1: Clarify Section 4 IPv4 Request Requirements (Owen
> DeLong)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 08:49:54 -0700
> From: Owen DeLong 
> To: Fernando Frediani 
> Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Reverted to Draft Policy - Draft
> Policy ARIN-2019-1: Clarify Section 4 IPv4 Request Requirements
> Message-ID: <3beb9c66-d91d-4b87-97b0-dd51a08a9...@delong.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I support this addition and support the policy with the addition.
>
> Owen
>
>
> > On May 14, 2020, at 08:37, Fernando Frediani 
> wrote:
> >
> > ?
> > I support this proposal.
> > It's fair to everybody and helps avoid fraud.
> >
> > Regards
> > Fernando
> >
> >> On 14/05/2020 11:56, Kat Hunter wrote:
> >> After making adjustments to the text, ARIN staff and legal conducted a
> new staff and legal review on 2019-1. You can view the updated review here:
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_1/#staff-and-legal-review-30-april-2020
> . It has been suggested that
> >> "It is worth noting that this Draft Policy does not include the removal
> of pending ARIN Waitlist requests for organizations that act as source
> organizations for 8.2, 8.3, or 8.4 transfers, which would allow them to
> conduct such transfers while waitlisted, and receive resources from the
> ARIN Waitlist immediately thereafter, as all organizations on the ARIN
> Waitlist have already applied, and are pending fulfillment.
> >> The text is clear and understandable, and can be implemented as
> written."
> >>
> >> After some discussion with some members of the AC, it was suggested
> that a new subsection is added to section 8 which would allow for
> additional clarity from this policy and some future cleanup via other
> future policy.
> >>
> >> "8.6 Waitlist Restrictions
> >>
> >> Any organization which is on the wait list and submits a request to be
> the source of a transfer under any provision in section 8 will be summarily
> removed from the wait list."
> >>
> >> I'd like to get the community's thoughts on the addition. With this
> addition, would you support the policy as written?
> >>
> >> -Kat Hunter
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 1:24 PM Kat Hunter  wrote:
> >>> Owen, I think this is a good suggestion. I've updated the month
> designations in the other section to 90 days as, I agree, it is more
> precise when we are discussing shorter amounts of time. Additionally, I've
> taken your suggestion on wordsmithing that section and adjusted it just a
> little.
> >>>
> >>> " An organization which serves as the source of an 8.2 IPv4 transfer
> will not be allowed to apply for IPv4 address space under section 4.1.8
> ARIN Waitlist for a period of 36 months following said transfer unless the
> recipient organization remains a subsidiary, parent company, or under
> common ownership with the source organization.".
> >>>
> >>> I wanted to make sure I specified that this was in reference to IPv4
> and that the organization also remains a subsidiary, parent company, or
> under common ownership.  Thank you for the input. Additionally I'd like to
> see if there is anyone else that still supports or no longer longer
> supports this policy as written.
> >>>
> >>> Kat Hunter
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 4:42 AM Owen DeLong  wrote:
> 
> 
>  > On Mar 9, 2020, at 06:26 , ARIN  wrote:
>  >
>  > On 20 February 2020, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) reverted the
> following Recommended Draft Policy to Draft Policy Status due to community
> feedback recommending significant substantive changes.:
>  >
>  > * Draft Policy ARIN-2019-1: Clarify Section 4 IPv4 Request
> Requirements
>  >
>  > The text has since been revised in response to that feedback.
>  >
>  > Revised text is below and can be found at:
>  >
>  > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_1/
>  >
>  > You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC
> will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance 

Re: [arin-ppml] draft policy 2019-19 ARIN-PPML

[Rudolph Daniel]

I've struggled so far with much of the comments on this draft.
Until that is, Fernando mentioned  "documented justification".
...in the interest of ipv6 adoption and not restrict but include internal
networks. But where do you draw the line?

RD


On Mon, Nov 11, 2019, 22:38  wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
> arin-ppml@arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving
>   Section 8 IPv4 Transfers (Fernando Frediani)
>2. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving
>   Section 8 IPv4 Transfers (Owen DeLong)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 00:26:37 -0300
> From: Fernando Frediani 
> To: arin-ppml 
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6
> Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers
> Message-ID: 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> On 12/11/2019 00:06, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >> This is not something new to be done as it is similar that the
> justification process which has always been done for IPv4, with the
> specific differences. It's important to highlight that this doesn't mean
> one must prove it has 100% IPv6 deployment, but rather that it is
> operational and in fact in used by internal devices, staff, customers, etc
> rather than just announced to the internet and used in a single tiny
> network just for Internet browsing.
> > Actually, it?s completely different from any justification process for
> IPv4 in any of ARIN?s history. ARIN has never required routing or proof of
> routing or any such thing in any IP number resource policy other than
> public ASNs requiring either peering with other AS(s) or a unique routing
> policy. Internet connectivity has _NEVER_ been an ARIN policy requirement
> for number resources.
> I said similar in the sense things should be proved through
> documentation, if it was the same I was going say that specifically.
> There is no how to put a list of specific requirements for one to prove
> IPv6 is operational, but similar to when someone used to justify for
> newer IPv4 allocation, it can be done as well to show IPv6 is
> operational, with all differences that apply to each case. Parts of this
> are contained in NRPM sections 4.2.1.4, mainly in 4.2.3.1 (where
> mentions "documented justification" - but doesn't specify which ones,
> which is up to staff's discretion). That has always worked well as far
> as I know.
> >> I think is reasonable to trust ARIN staff to evaluate at their
> discretion as three is precedent in the NRPM and it is not very difficult
> to differentiate both scenarios. In short words, a commitment to IPv6 and
> having it operational doesn't mean 100% deployment.
> > Please point to this precedent? I can?t find it.
> The mentioned above. Also section 4.1.0 mentions "ARIN staff will use
> their discretion when evaluating justifications.".
>
> Therefore I believe it's reasonable to let them process these
> justification and it's not very difficult to differentiate one that
> turns on IPv6 just to fulfill this policy requirements and one that
> really has it operational and is committed to it.
>
> Fernando
>
> >
> > Owen
> >
> >> Best regards
> >> Fernando
> >>
> >> On 11/11/2019 17:34, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote:
> >>> I have a request for any numbers on IPv6 adoption of those who have
> received directed transfers in the last year, or any other available period.
> >>>
> >>> I have looked at some of the blocks that have been transferred, and
> most of them seem to be obtained by larger ISP or Mobile Wireless providers
> that are already well known adopters of IPv6. Such providers would of
> course have no issues meeting the standards of the Draft Policy.
> >>>
> >>> What I would like to find out is what percentage are in the position
> of not having any IPv6 in place, and therefore might be adversely affected.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Albert Erdmann
> >>> Network Administrator
> >>> Paradise On Line Inc.
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 7 Nov 2019, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >>>
> 
> On Nov 6, 2019, at 13:40 , Fernando Frediani <
> fhfredi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>  I wanted to kindly request AC members attention to all objections
> based on the argument that "ARIN is forcing someone to do something on
> their own
>  network?.
> 
> 
>  This is NOT true at all and not the propose of this proposal
> therefore I believe these kind of objections have been refuted 

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft PolicyARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks (Ralph Sims)

[Rudolph Daniel]

Re: "I threw a /24 back in The Swamp 20+ years ago, because it was right."

Maybe a long-term carpark would have been more useful in hindsight.
 I do not support this draft policy.
RD

On Tue, Oct 1, 2019, 16:15  wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
> arin-ppml@arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to
>   Non-Connected Networks (Ralph Sims)
>2. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to
>   Non-Connected Networks (David Farmer)
>3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to
>   Non-Connected Networks (Mike Burns)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 19:09:04 +
> From: Ralph Sims 
> To: Fernando Frediani , "arin-ppml@arin.net"
> 
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP
> Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks
> Message-ID:
> <
> mwhpr0401mb3691429fcd4c09706a7daef8a8...@mwhpr0401mb3691.namprd04.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Due to our not knowing that ARIN recently changed its policy on allocating
> additional address space, we are unable to get a subnet to handle our
> growth (missed the cut off by 10 days).  We recently acquired a company
> that gets its space from another provider, but we need additional space to
> service its customers as well as for our own growth.  We have tried to be
> good ?citizens? in the past by not requesting more than we could justify at
> the time, but now it appears we have shot ourselves in the foot.  I threw a
> /24 back in The Swamp 20+ years ago, because it was right.  I don?t feel
> badly about that, however.  Now we are faced with considering using a
> broker to acquire the additional space as ARIN cannot meet our needs.  IPv6
> is good, but we are dealing with organizations that a) don?t have the
> expertise to manage it, or b) aren?t in the position to acquire new
> hardware and c) other considerations.  I?m not speaking of small outfits,
> but large organizations entrenched in the
>   v4 world?"years of tradition unhampered by progress?.  I don?t have a
> lot of hair to lose and going the ?educate the customer? route is getting
> old.  ?We can?t do v6 so we?ll look elsewhere for a provider that can give
> us the v4 space we need.?
>
> I think the current discussion is circular and may not lead towards a
> consensus.
>
>
>
> 
> **unused space** - that's the term to look at.
> While there are plenty of organizations in the waiting list patiently
> waiting to get addresses they are able to justify there are others with
> unused space just willing to speculate them and rent totally bypassing the
> waiting list.
> Perhaps the community at some point may reach consensus on a specific
> policy to revoke these unused space from these organizations and put them
> back into the waiting list. It would certainly cost much less than having
> to pay for leases. No courts in the world where a contract is respected
> would object to such a policy.
>
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20191001/1cf20cdc/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 14:33:17 -0500
> From: David Farmer 
> To: Fernando Frediani 
> Cc: ARIN-PPML List 
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP
> Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks
> Message-ID:
> <
> can-dau3t1x33na0ovq+vx9xwsmxtjvwrtbqeix-bnxlkuwt...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 1:47 PM Fernando Frediani 
> wrote:
>
> > **unused space** - that's the term to look at.
> > While there are plenty of organizations in the waiting list patiently
> > waiting to get addresses they are able to justify there are others with
> > unused space just willing to speculate them and rent totally bypassing
> the
> > waiting list.
> > Perhaps the community at some point may reach consensus on a specific
> > policy to revoke these unused space from these organizations and put them
> > back into the waiting list. It would certainly cost much less than having
> > to pay for leases. No courts in the world where a contract is respected
> > would object to such a policy.
> >
>
> Address reclamation is non-starter it is never going to happen, get over
> it. We went with a market so we didn't have to have the fight of
> 

[arin-ppml] Proposal: 2019-9

[Rudolph Daniel]

Am I correct in thinking that org's requesting ipv4 resources, not
stipulated for v6 deployment use, can use the allocation for either purpose?
RD

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 20:38  wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
> arin-ppml@arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Policy proposal 2019-9 (Michael Williams)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 17:37:21 -0700
> From: Michael Williams 
> To: Rudolph Daniel 
> Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy proposal 2019-9
> Message-ID:
>  18ffpb3jspb-agvjkwb1rheyzc+cankuwhtoehzv83b...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I am against the policy as written.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 31, 2019, at 09:57, Rudolph Daniel  wrote:
>
> I support this revised version of draft policy ARIN-2019-9 as written.
> RD
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 15:50  wrote:
>
> > Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
> > arin-ppml@arin.net
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >1. Re: Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2019-9: Clarify Interactions
> >   Between NRPM 4.10 IPv6 Transition Space Requests and NRPM 4.1.8.2
> >   Unmet Needs Requests (Kat Hunter)
> >2. Re: Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2019-9: Clarify Interactions
> >   Between NRPM 4.10 IPv6 Transition Space Requests and NRPM 4.1.8.2
> >   Unmet Needs Requests (Brian Jones)
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 13:33:07 -0400
> > From: Kat Hunter 
> > To: Brian Jones 
> > Cc: ARIN-PPML 
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2019-9: Clarify
> > Interactions Between NRPM 4.10 IPv6 Transition Space Requests and
> > NRPM
> > 4.1.8.2 Unmet Needs Requests
> > Message-ID:
> >  > ucieaj6vq3yljrbkzswhqyn98whwza5gqi2zhzm2aax6...@mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > All- Staff and legal review has been completed for 2019-9. Please take a
> > moment to review the comments. For those that supported this, do you
> still
> > support the policy given the staff notes. Additionally, we'd like to hear
> > from anyone that this may impact in a negative way.
> >
> > Policy: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_9/
> > Staff and Legal Review
> > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_9/#slr
> >
> > "ARIN Staff Comments
> >
> > This policy could be implemented as written. Current policy is that any
> > organization on the waiting list that receives IPv4 addresses through a
> > transfer are removed from the waiting list, but those receiving an NRPM
> > 4.10 (Dedicated IPv4 Block to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment) assignment are
> > not removed from the waiting list. The proposed change would result those
> > organizations receiving an NRPM 4.10 assignment also being removed from
> the
> > waiting list.
> >
> > Staff notes that adding the ??or an allocation request fulfilled under
> > Section 4.10?? may be detrimental to some organizations, as address space
> > received per NRPM 4.10 must be used in a manner consistent with IPv6
> > translation services and cannot be used for other purposes such as
> customer
> > assignments, shared hosting services, etc.
> >
> > Organizations need IPv4 address space to assign to their customers, and
> > many organizations will request a block from the Waiting List to be used
> > for their custom

[arin-ppml] Policy proposal 2019-9

[Rudolph Daniel]

I support this revised version of draft policy ARIN-2019-9 as written.
RD

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 15:50  wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
> arin-ppml@arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2019-9: Clarify Interactions
>   Between NRPM 4.10 IPv6 Transition Space Requests and NRPM 4.1.8.2
>   Unmet Needs Requests (Kat Hunter)
>2. Re: Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2019-9: Clarify Interactions
>   Between NRPM 4.10 IPv6 Transition Space Requests and NRPM 4.1.8.2
>   Unmet Needs Requests (Brian Jones)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 13:33:07 -0400
> From: Kat Hunter 
> To: Brian Jones 
> Cc: ARIN-PPML 
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2019-9: Clarify
> Interactions Between NRPM 4.10 IPv6 Transition Space Requests and
> NRPM
> 4.1.8.2 Unmet Needs Requests
> Message-ID:
>  ucieaj6vq3yljrbkzswhqyn98whwza5gqi2zhzm2aax6...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> All- Staff and legal review has been completed for 2019-9. Please take a
> moment to review the comments. For those that supported this, do you still
> support the policy given the staff notes. Additionally, we'd like to hear
> from anyone that this may impact in a negative way.
>
> Policy: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_9/
> Staff and Legal Review
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_9/#slr
>
> "ARIN Staff Comments
>
> This policy could be implemented as written. Current policy is that any
> organization on the waiting list that receives IPv4 addresses through a
> transfer are removed from the waiting list, but those receiving an NRPM
> 4.10 (Dedicated IPv4 Block to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment) assignment are
> not removed from the waiting list. The proposed change would result those
> organizations receiving an NRPM 4.10 assignment also being removed from the
> waiting list.
>
> Staff notes that adding the ??or an allocation request fulfilled under
> Section 4.10?? may be detrimental to some organizations, as address space
> received per NRPM 4.10 must be used in a manner consistent with IPv6
> translation services and cannot be used for other purposes such as customer
> assignments, shared hosting services, etc.
>
> Organizations need IPv4 address space to assign to their customers, and
> many organizations will request a block from the Waiting List to be used
> for their customer assignments but still need some IPv4 space for
> deployment of IPv6 translation services as outlined in section NRPM 4.10.
> Removing organizations from the Waiting List when they receive a NRPM 4.10
> assignment would hinder the existing IPv4 operations & growth of
> organizations, and may provide a disincentive to IPv6 deployment."
>
>
>
> -Kat Hunter
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 1:42 PM Brian Jones  wrote:
>
> > I support this revised version of draft policy ARIN-2019-9 as written.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 23, 2019, 12:44 PM ARIN  wrote:
> >
> >> The following has been revised:
> >>
> >> * Draft Policy ARIN-2019-9: Clarify Interactions Between NRPM 4.10 IPv6
> >> Transition Space Requests and NRPM 4.1.8.2 Unmet Needs Requests
> >>
> >> Revised text is below and can be found at:
> >> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_9/
> >>
> >> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will
> >> evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this Draft
> >> Policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as
> >> stated in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these
> >> principles are:
> >>
> >> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
> >> * Technically Sound
> >> * Supported by the Community
> >>
> >> The PDP can be found at:
> >> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/
> >>
> >> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
> >> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Sean Hopkins
> >> Policy Analyst
> >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2019-9: Clarify Interactions Between NRPM 4.10 IPv6
> >> Transition Space Requests and NRPM 4.1.8.2 Unmet Needs Requests
> >>
> >> Problem Statement:
> >>
> >> It has been observed that an organization requesting IPv4 resources
> >> under NRPM Section 4.10, Dedicated IPv4 Block To Facilitate IPv6
> >> Deployment, can also request similar or the 

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML nrpn 4.1.8

[Rudolph Daniel]

I am in favour of the AC's recommendation to address fraudulent acts.  I
note the length and breath of the discussion which would subsequently I
hope, further refine policy.

RD

On Mon, Jun 10, 2019, 14:25  wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
> arin-ppml@arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Looking for final show of support on revised Advisory
>   Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests
>   (WOOD Alison * DAS)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 18:24:20 +
> From: WOOD Alison * DAS 
> To: Owen DeLong , John Curran 
> Cc: ARIN-PPML List 
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Looking for final show of support on revised
> Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet
> Requests
> Message-ID:
> <
> mwhpr09mb150177fec73208b5739fcaab9f...@mwhpr09mb1501.namprd09.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I am in favor of the Advisory Council?s recommendation.  The proposed
> recommendation is a broad stroke to address fraudulent behavior, but given
> new community feedback it could potentially use some refinement after
> initial implementation.
>
> I encourage the community to continue submitting their ideas and to
> utilize the PDP ? I?m also happy to help!
>
> -Alison
>
>
> From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen
> DeLong
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2019 10:30 AM
> To: John Curran 
> Cc: ARIN-PPML List 
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Looking for final show of support on revised
> Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests
>
> Yes. I favor the AC?s revised recommendation. The changes address certain
> staff concerns we hadn?t previously considered while maintaining a
> structure which I believe is widely supported within the community.
>
> Even if this isn?t the perfect solution, I believe it is a good way
> forward and additional modification should be done through the standard
> policy process.
>
> Owen
>
>
> On Jun 6, 2019, at 10:20, John Curran  jcur...@arin.net>> wrote:
> Folks -
>
> We?ve had excellent discussion of various options for the revised
> ?Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests"
> proposed policy change ? some of which is likely to have to further
> informed folks initial views on the matter (as well as on future policy
> proposals in this area), but at this time it is fairly important that we
> receive focused feedback on the revised policy text as written, with due
> consideration to the discussion that has occurred online.
>
> To that end, at this time it would be good to know from everyone:
>
> 1.  Are you in favor of ARIN making the policy change specified in the
> revised  "Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet
> Requests?  ?
>
> (?Yes? obviously indicative that you?d like ARIN to proceed with its
> adoption and resumption of wait list issuance under its revised guidelines,
> and
>  ?No? being indicative that you?d rather have the suspension of wait list
> issuance continue unless/until some other policy change in this area
> reaches consensus.)
>
> 2.  If you are not supportive of ARIN making the change specified in the
> revised "Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet
> Requests?,
> is there any modification to the proposed policy change that would enable
> you to support it?
>
> I would ask that PPML participants take a moment to consider the proposed
> policy change as written and please reply regarding the questions above.
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: ARIN mailto:i...@arin.net>>
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised - Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding
> NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests
> Date: 24 May 2019 at 1:04:58 PM EDT
> To: mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>>
>
> At their 16 May meeting, the Advisory Council revised their recommendation
> regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests.
>
> The revised recommendation is hereby submitted to the Public Policy
> Mailing List for a second community discussion period of 14 days, to
> conclude on 7 June.
>
> Once completed, the Board of Trustees will review the AC?s recommendation
> and the PPML discussion.
>
> The full text of the Advisory Council's revised recommendation is below.
>
> Sean Hopkins
> Policy Analyst
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
>
> Advisory Council recommendation:
>
> This is an 

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML- of interest !

[Rudolph Daniel]

https://www.news-journal.com/ap/national/arin-wins-important-legal-case-and-precedent-against-fraud/article_ceb57140-e574-5355-a8b3-c8f8c70a439e.html

Re the above; thank you for posting. Certainly congrats to ARIN.

RD

On Tue, May 14, 2019, 11:19  wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
> arin-ppml@arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Fwd: Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM
>   4.1.8. Unmet Requests (Scott Leibrand)
>2. Of interest? (Mike Burns)
>3. Re: Of interest? (Chris James)
>4. Re: Of interest? (Mike Arbrouet)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 10:06:12 -0700
> From: Scott Leibrand 
> To: Jimmy Hess 
> Cc: Tom Pruitt , "arin-ppml@arin.net"
> 
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory Council Recommendation
> Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests
> Message-ID:
> <
> cagkmwz4rqwkhccrnoskagxvmpm+3z4v1d1irqve8mjtjeso...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> If we did this, I suspect what would happen for the foreseeable future is
> that all reclaimed space would be assigned out as /24s to everyone willing
> to accept a /24 to fulfil their request. Anyone who insisted on a larger
> block would get nothing, so there'd be no incentive to do so. That would
> have the effect of giving a small number of space to the largest number of
> organizations possible, which could be considered a feature or a bug
> (increasing the number of routes that have to go into the global BGP
> table).
>
> -Scott
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 9:00 AM Jimmy Hess  wrote:
>
> > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 9:39 AM Tom Pruitt 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> If those organizations were watching the list, and moving up, it is
> >> likely that they have made
> >>
> > business decisions based on that data with the assumption that they would
> >> get an allocation
> >>
> > at some point.   I believe the proposed allocation limit is being
> >> discussed as a method to
> >>
> >
> > Such speculations would not have been a very prudent to rely upon.
> > Anyway: there is likely
> > to not ever be a full /7,  so a /7 cannot be allocated, for example.
> Some
> > "natural" limit exists,
> > whether exactly known or not,  and there's no guarantee of anyone on the
> > list ever
> > eventually getting filled.
> >
> > Perhaps it should simply be that when ordering the wait list ---  All
> > requests whether new or
> > still pending each XX day period,  say over 90 days will be considered
> > simultaneously
> > on one date,  and in addition to being ordered by request date,  the
> > requests are sorted
> > into buckets based on the number of total IP addresses requested, e.g.:
> >
> > All requests that can be satisfied at their minimum size by a /24, /23,
> > /22, /21, or less (for example)
> > in the entire waiting  list, and those larger being processed today shall
> > each be sorted into a
> > corresponding "bucket"   with other requests that can be satisfied at
> that
> > size.
> >
> > All requests from every bucket of smaller sized requests shall be
> > satisfied in at least their
> > minimum size  before considering requests in any buckets of larger size.
> >
> >
> > In this manner a "larger request" like a /20 could in theory be made,
> but
> > even if that request was pending for  2 years:   all the  new  requests
> > that can be
> > satisfied by /24 or less,  then /23 or less,  then /22 or less, then /21
> > or less  should
> > be considered and filled first.
> >
> > So to have any chance of filling a massive allocation,  then that should
> > mean the
> > waiting list has become essentially empty.
> >
> > --
> > -JH
> > ___
> > 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.
> >
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20190513/e473c2c2/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 11:10:05 -0400
> From: "Mike Burns" 
> To: 
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Of interest?
> Message-ID: <059b01d50a67$1c811af0$558350d0$@iptrading.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I found this to be an 

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Draft 2019-1

[Rudolph Daniel]

I support this draft proposal..
RD

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 12:00 PM  wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
> arin-ppml@arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2019-1: Clarify Section 4 IPv4
>   Request Requirements (ARIN)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 14:26:07 -0400
> From: ARIN 
> To: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2019-1: Clarify
> Section 4 IPv4 Request Requirements
> Message-ID: <6a411169-0e13-2087-d6f2-5176a56bf...@arin.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> The following has been revised:
>
> * Draft Policy ARIN-2019-1: Clarify Section 4 IPv4 Request Requirements
>
> Revised text is below and can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_1/
>
> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will
> evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this draft
> policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as
> stated in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these
> principles are:
>
> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
> * Technically Sound
> * Supported by the Community
>
> The PDP can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/
>
> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/
>
> Regards,
>
> Sean Hopkins
> Policy Analyst
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2019-1: Clarify Section 4 IPv4 Request Requirements
>
> Problem Statement:
>
> Per a recent ARIN Policy Experience Report and resulting AC discussion,
> it was noted that the language of Section 4.1.8 is imprecise in that it
> can be interpreted as specifying a waiting period for any allocation
> activity, as opposed to being intended to limit only the frequency of
> IPv4 allocations under Section 4.
>
> The same Policy Experience Report also noted that ARIN staff has
> observed a pattern where an organization transfers space under NRPM
> Section 8.2 to a specified recipient, and then immediately applies for
> space under Section 4. This activity appears to be speculative in nature
> and not consistent with sound address management policy.
>
> The updated language in this proposal addresses the two issues above, as
> both concerns can be addressed via modifications to the same section and
> sentence thereof of the NRPM:
>
> * Clarifies the waiting period to only prohibit requests for IPv4
> allocations under Section 4 of the NRPM
>
> * Disallows organizations that have transferred space to other parties
> within the past 36 months from applying for additional IPv4 space under
> NRPM Section 4.
>
> Policy Statement:
>
> Current language found in NRPM Section 4.1.8 - Unmet Requests:
>
> Repeated requests, in a manner that would circumvent 4.1.6, are not
> allowed: an organization may only receive one allocation, assignment, or
> transfer every 3 months, but ARIN, at its sole discretion, may waive
> this requirement if the requester can document a change in circumstances
> since their last request that could not have been reasonably foreseen at
> the time of the original request, and which now justifies additional space.
>
> Proposed new language:
>
> Repeated requests, in a manner that would circumvent 4.1.6 are not
> allowed: an organization may not apply for IPv4 address resources under
> this section if they have received an allocation, assignment, or
> transfer of IPv4 resources less than three months prior, or if the
> organization has transferred space to another party under Section 8 less
> than 36 months prior. ARIN, at its sole discretion, may waive this
> restriction if the requester can document a change in circumstances
> since their last request that could not have been reasonably foreseen at
> the time of the original request, and which now justifies additional space.
>
> Comments:
>
> This proposal incorporates two related policy goals, combined for
> convenience in one proposal as both can addressed via modification of
> the same section and sentence of the NRPM. During ARIN 43 it was
> proposed to the community that the two policy statements were
> severalble, however, there was sufficient community support behind
> keeping both.
>
>
> --
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> ___
> ARIN-PPML mailing list
> 

Re: [arin-ppml] draft policies 2009-1-2

[Rudolph Daniel]

I support the intent of both policies.
Rudi Daniel

On Sun, Mar 3, 2019, 15:38  wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
> arin-ppml@arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2019-1: Clarify Section 4 IPv4 Request
>   Requirements (Chris Woodfield)
>2. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2019-1: Clarify Section 4 IPv4 Request
>   Requirements (Scott Leibrand)
>3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2019-1: Clarify Section 4 IPv4 Request
>   Requirements (Joel Large)
>4. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2019-2: Waiting List Block Size
>   Restriction (Scott Leibrand)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2019 10:02:35 -0800
> From: Chris Woodfield 
> To: Tom Fantacone 
> Cc: hostmaster , arin-ppml
> 
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-1: Clarify Section 4
> IPv4 Request Requirements
> Message-ID: <1d353deb-bdf2-45dd-b2fd-89e8c3690...@semihuman.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;   charset=utf-8
>
> Hi Tom - responses inline.
>
> One additional point - the current policy places a limit on how often an
> organization can receive resources from the waiting list. This draft
> changes the hold-down timer so that it now applies to *applications* for
> new allocations under the waiting list policy, not the receipt of resources
> from it.
>
> > On Mar 3, 2019, at 7:18 AM, Tom Fantacone  wrote:
> >
> > Chris,
> >
> > The "clarification" part of your proposal seems to be a no brainer (the
> waiting period is meant to apply to allocations only under section 4).  I
> assume ARIN staff is already interpreting it this way since that was the
> intent of the section.  So I wouldn't sever it unless the full policy
> doesn't gain support in which case we could revisit just inserting the
> clarification part.
> >
>
> That assumption is my understanding as well.
>
> > Regarding this:
> > "- Disallows organizations that have transferred space to other parties
> within the past 12 months from applying for additional IPv4 space under
> NRPM Section 4. "
> >
> > I want to make sure I understand it correctly.  If you transfer out
> space via 8.2/8.3/8.4, does this restriction mean you just can't receive
> space via the waiting list for 12 months, or via any mechanism (waiting
> list/transfer) for 12 months?  I think it means from the waiting list only,
> but want to be sure.
> >
>
> That is correct - note the phrase ?...under this section...? in the
> proposal text.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Chris
>
>
> > Tom
> >
> >
> >
> >  On Sat, 02 Mar 2019 13:48:01 -0500 Chris Woodfield <
> ch...@semihuman.com> wrote 
> >
> > Speaking as the policy author, I?ll make two points:
> >
> > 1. I?m aware that given the other discussions around waiting list policy
> that are ongoing, this proposal may well be rendered moot by future policy
> changes. I still believe that this is worth pursuing as there?s a current
> need for clarification and increased disincentives for bad behavior today.
> > 2. I?m deliberately killing two not-terribly-related birds with one
> stone with this proposal, based on the fact that the two issues noted from
> the PER can be addressed by adding language to the same NRPM text. Happy to
> consider severing them if the community prefers.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > -Chris
> >
> > > On Mar 2, 2019, at 9:33 AM, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote:
> > >
> > > I think it is time to start the ball on the other policies.
> > >
> > > +1 on this. It seems focused on those gathering resources to resell.
> > >
> > > Albert Erdmann
> > > Network Administrator
> > > Paradise On Line Inc.
> > t i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2019 10:52:41 -0800
> From: Scott Leibrand 
> To: Chris Woodfield 
> Cc: Tom Fantacone , arin-ppml 
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-1: Clarify Section 4
> IPv4 Request Requirements
> Message-ID: <056723a7-2403-4f03-a29c-dd5e3d610...@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;   charset=utf-8
>
> Thanks for clarifying that, Chris. I support this draft policy proposal:
> forcing applicants to wait to get into line for free space will at least
> slow down any attempts to make money off the free pool via the waiting
> list.
>
> Scott
>
> > On Mar 3, 2019, at 10:02 AM, Chris Woodfield 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Tom - responses inline.
> >
> > One additional point - the current policy places a limit on how often an
> organization can receive resources from the waiting list. 

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2018-5: Disallow Third-party Organization Record Creation (Jason Schiller)

[Rudolph Daniel]

I support the Draft Policy as written.

Rudi Daniel



.




On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 1:00 PM  wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
> arin-ppml@arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2018-5: Disallow Third-party
>   Organization Record Creation (Jason Schiller)
>2. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2018-5: Disallow Third-party
>   Organization Record Creation (John Curran)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 16:25:04 -0500
> From: Jason Schiller 
> To: Scott Leibrand 
> Cc: ARIN , ARIN-PPML List 
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2018-5: Disallow
> Third-party Organization Record Creation
> Message-ID:
> <
> cac4yj2uusurghu0cl4got+x6h6gpqwhapj4l0d9epzvx1el...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I support the policy as written.
>
> I also support it as an operational practice change
> if we can document such change in the "ARIN services document".
>
> (Channeling former co-worker MJ) I lament the lack of a services document.
>
> Either way, I have a question for staff:
>
> How will staff deal with Org creation requests for legal entities that are
> incorporated
> outside of the ARIN service region?
>
> Today the only way for an ARIN Org to reallocate or re-assign IPs to a
> non-ARIN
> service region legal entity is to create a customer OrgId while SWIP'ing.
>
> ___Jason
>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 3:56 PM Scott Leibrand 
> wrote:
>
> > I support the intent here, but wonder if this really requires us to add
> so
> > many verbose new sections to the NRPM.  Isn't this more of an operational
> > practice we'd like ARIN to change?  Could it go through as an ACSP
> > suggestion and consultation instead of a policy change?
> >
> > -Scott
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 12:53 PM ARIN  wrote:
> >
> >> On 15 November 2018 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
> >> "ARIN-prop-257: Disallow Third-party Organization Record Creation" as a
> >> Draft Policy.
> >>
> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2018-5 is below and can be found at:
> >> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2018_5.html
> >>
> >> 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/policy/pdp.html
> >>
> >> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
> >> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Sean Hopkins
> >> Policy Analyst
> >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2018-5: Disallow Third-party Organization Record
> >> Creation
> >>
> >> Problem Statement:
> >>
> >> Since the introduction of simple-reassignment some years ago, it is no
> >> longer necessary to allow for third-parties (such as upstream ISPs) to
> >> create organization records for another entity (such as their
> >> customers).  In particular, many entities find that spurious
> >> organization records are routinely created in their name, causing both
> >> confusion and entity + staff time for clean-up.
> >>
> >> Therefore, this policy establishes that organization records shall be
> >> created only by the entity represented by the organization record, and
> >> should be created only through an explicit request to ARIN.  ISPs
> >> wishing to reassign space to customers should either ask the customer
> >> for their ORG-ID or shall use the "simple reassignment" method which
> >> does not require nor create new organization records.  ISPs wishing to
> >> reallocate space to customers should ask the customer for their ORG-ID.
> >>
> >> Policy Statement:
> >>
> >> Add new sections into the NRPM:
> >>
> >> 3.7 Organization and Resource Records
> >>
> >> 3.7.1 Organizations
> >>
> >> ARIN shall track and publish a database of organizations which have
> >> registered with ARIN or have, in the past, received resources from ARIN
> >> or a predecessor registry.  New organization records shall be created
> >> upon ARIN receiving a request directly from an authorized contact
> >> representing an entity that ARIN is able to validate.  Organization
> >> records shall 

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2018-1

[Rudolph Daniel]

I need a small clarification.
The Caribbean region has 3 RIRs

St Lucia is ARIN, Trinidad is LACNIC and Martinique is RIPE
If my base is arin and offer wholesale services to same geo. Region
countries.. Trinidad (lacnic) and Martinique (Ripe), do i need 3 separate
AS numbers?

rd




On 3 Feb 2018 14:17,  wrote:

Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
arin-ppml@arin.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net



Today's Topics:

   1. Weekly posting summary for p...@arin.net (nar...@us.ibm.com)
   2. Re: IPv6 Transfers (was :Draft Policy ARIN-2018-1: Allow
  Inter-regional ASN Transfers (Aaron Dudek)
   3. Re: IPv6 Transfers (was :Draft Policy ARIN-2018-1: Allow
  Inter-regional ASN Transfers (hostmas...@uneedus.com)
   4. Re: IPv6 Transfers (was :Draft Policy ARIN-2018-1: Allow
  Inter-regional ASN Transfers (Scott Leibrand)


--

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2018 00:53:02 -0500
From: nar...@us.ibm.com
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for p...@arin.net
Message-ID: <201802020553.w125r3hv024...@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Total of 32 messages in the last 7 days.

script run at: Fri Feb  2 00:53:02 EST 2018

Messages   |  Bytes| Who
+--++--+
 21.88% |7 | 27.63% |   169157 | far...@umn.edu
  9.38% |3 | 12.88% |78835 | jschil...@google.com
  9.38% |3 |  7.02% |42959 | jcur...@arin.net
  6.25% |2 |  9.69% |59336 | ch...@semihuman.com
  6.25% |2 |  8.93% |54678 | o...@delong.com
  9.38% |3 |  4.96% |30392 | j...@ntt.net
  6.25% |2 |  7.37% |45115 | orobe...@bell.ca
  6.25% |2 |  4.37% |26761 | hvgeekwt...@gmail.com
  6.25% |2 |  3.81% |23298 | hostmas...@uneedus.com
  6.25% |2 |  3.06% |18719 | i...@arin.net
  3.12% |1 |  3.86% |23613 | m...@iptrading.com
  3.12% |1 |  2.52% |15439 | alison.w...@oregon.gov
  3.12% |1 |  2.27% |13881 | scottleibr...@gmail.com
  3.12% |1 |  1.64% |10023 | nar...@us.ibm.com
+--++--+
100.00% |   32 |100.00% |   612206 | Total



--

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 13:45:49 -0500
From: Aaron Dudek 
To: David Farmer 
Cc: "Roberts, Orin" , "arin-ppml@arin.net"

Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 Transfers (was :Draft Policy
ARIN-2018-1: Allow Inter-regional ASN Transfers
Message-ID:

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 148, Issue 8

[Rudolph Daniel]

+1 - Support as written.

I know +1's aren't strictly needed in Last Call, but I want to explicitly
state that I agree with the AC that sufficient consideration and discussion
was given to the "should" vs. "shall" question before and during the PPM,
and therefore I agree it is appropriate to send the policy to Last Call
(and on to the board, if no un-considered objections are raised) without
another public policy meeting/consultation.

-Scott

As Scott above.
rd

On Oct 11, 2017 3:36 PM,  wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
> arin-ppml@arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: LAST CALL - Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5:
>   Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements (Scott Leibrand)
>2. Re: LAST CALL - Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5:
>   Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements (Gary Buhrmaster)
>3. Re: LAST CALL - Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5:
>   Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements (Christoph Blecker)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 12:27:37 -0700
> From: Scott Leibrand 
> To: ARIN-PPML List 
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL - Recommended Draft Policy
> ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements
> Message-ID:
>  p9w0dvq...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> +1 - Support as written.
>
> I know +1's aren't strictly needed in Last Call, but I want to explicitly
> state that I agree with the AC that sufficient consideration and discussion
> was given to the "should" vs. "shall" question before and during the PPM,
> and therefore I agree it is appropriate to send the policy to Last Call
> (and on to the board, if no un-considered objections are raised) without
> another public policy meeting/consultation.
>
> -Scott
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:16 PM, ARIN  wrote:
>
> > The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 6 October 2017 and decided to send
> > the following to Last Call:
> >
> > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration
> > Requirements
> >
> > The AC provided the following statement to the community:
> >
> > "Based on strong community support - on both the Public Policy Mailing
> > List and in person at ARIN 40 during the policy consultation - for
> > replacing the "should" qualifier in section 6.5.5.4 with "shall", the
> > Advisory Council, after careful review and discussion, has made the
> > requested change to the text."
> >
> > Feedback is encouraged during the Last Call period. All comments should
> be
> > provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. This Last Call period will
> > expire on 10 November 2017. After Last Call, the AC will conduct their
> Last
> > Call review.
> >
> > The full text is below and available at:
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/
> >
> > The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at:
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Sean Hopkins
> > Policy Analyst
> > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> >
> >
> >
> > AC's Statement of Conformance with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number
> > Resource Policy:
> >
> > This proposal is technically sound and enables fair and impartial number
> > policy for easier IPv6 Registrations. The staff and legal review noted a
> > single clarification issue which has been addressed. There is ample
> support
> > for the proposal on PPML and no concerns have been raised by the
> community
> > regarding the proposal.
> >
> > Problem Statement:
> >
> > Current ARIN policy has different WHOIS directory registration
> > requirements for IPv4 vs IPv6 address assignments. IPv4 registration is
> > triggered for an assignment of any address block equal to or greater
> than a
> > /29 (i.e., eight IPv4 addresses). In the case of IPv6, registration
> occurs
> > for an assignment of any block equal to or greater than a /64, which
> > constitutes one entire IPv6 subnet and is the minimum block size for an
> > allocation. Accordingly, there is a significant disparity between IPv4
> and
> > IPv6 WHOIS registration thresholds in the case of assignments, resulting
> in
> > more work in the case of IPv6 than is the case for IPv4. There is no
> > technical or policy rationale for the disparity, which could serve as a
> > deterrent to more rapid IPv6 adoption. The purpose of this proposal is to
> > eliminate the disparity and corresponding adverse consequences.
> >
> > Policy 

Re: [arin-ppml] 2017-8 community networks

[Rudolph Daniel]

A community network is a network organized and operated by a volunteer
group, not-for-profit, non-profit, or charitable organization
>  for the purpose of providing free or low-cost connectivity within their
community. Volunteers play a large role in directing the activity of the
organization, but some functions may be handled by paid staff.?

The above suggested definition seems a good deal more tidy that others I
have read.
rd

On Oct 3, 2017 5:35 PM,  wrote:

Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
arin-ppml@arin.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-8: Amend the Definition
  of Community Network (David Huberman)
   2. Re: Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-8: Amend the Definition
  of Community Network (David Farmer)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 19:32:27 -0400
From: David Huberman 
To: Richard J Letts 
Cc: "arin-ppml@arin.net" 
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-8: Amend the
Definition of Community Network
Message-ID: <765a1483-6cc2-4a09-9187-8f84dd6ab...@panix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I like this language a lot, and the strong reasoning behind it.


> On Oct 3, 2017, at 3:52 PM, Richard J Letts  wrote:
>
>
> My point of view
> a)   I am not sure why educational institutions are not able to pay
the fees for other categories of usage, or why they need an exception.
> ARIN staff would need to decide if the application satisfies this: ?a
volunteer group, not-for-profit, non-profit, or charitable organization?
>
> I?ve been involved with enough community groups to know that two of these
have weak governance structures that fail when there are conflicts (a
volunteer group and being a non-core aspect of a charitable organization),
inevitably leading to the collapse of the organization. I?m not going to
prejudge that debate here, but consider striking them. If the community
organization doesn?t have 501(c)3 status in the US they are leaving out the
opportunity to save money and get grants.
>
> Without a legal entity ?owning? the space how would ARIN know they were
dealing with, who is legally allowed to dispose of the space, etc.
>
> b)  Who cares if they provide ?other Information Technology services?
to their community; we?re talking about internet access here
>
> c)   ?Persons or entities? seems redundant (It is like saying ?people
or not people?); who/what are the not a person and not an entity that are
excluded?
>
> d)  I am not sure what is considered critical? Digging ditches?
Pulling fiber? Responding to ARIN requests? Filing forms with the IRS?
> As an example I?m on the board of a non-profit. We decide on the aims,
manage the membership, etc. but we pay [independent 1099] contractors for
services (editing and printing the newsletter, performing at concerts,
concert sound, etc.). Some of these are non-critical (the newsletter), some
are critical (the performers), volunteers some critical things (IRS tax
returns, state registrations) and some non-critical things (run the website)
>
> So I think I end up with something with fewer words.
> ?A community network is a network organized and operated by a volunteer
group, not-for-profit, non-profit, or charitable organization
>  for the purpose of providing free or low-cost connectivity within their
community. Volunteers play a large role in directing the activity of the
organization, but some functions may be handled by paid staff.?
>
>
> /RjL
>
>
> ?2.11 Community Network
>
> A community network is a network organized and operated by a volunteer
> group, not-for-profit, non-profit, charitable organization, or
> educational institution for the purpose of providing free or low-cost
> connectivity, or other Information Technology services to persons or
> entities within their community. Critical functions may be handled by
> paid staff, but volunteers play a large role in offering services
> available through community networks.?
>
> ___
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2017-5

[Rudolph Daniel]

Thank you for the clarification.
rd

On Sep 30, 2017 8:06 AM, "John Curran" <jcur...@arin.net> wrote:

> On 29 Sep 2017, at 1:16 PM, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.dan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> "shall"
>
> Ref: John's comment.
> ...
> if left unaddressed on a chronic manner, could have
>me discussing the customer complaints as a sign of potential failure to
> comply with
>number resource policy, including the consequences (i.e. potential
> revocation of the IPv6 number resources.).
>
> End quote.
>
> Would ARIN legal have an issue with suggested consequence .above.. of
> chronic failure to comply
>
> Rudolph -
>
>In general, no…  all parties agree to compliance with resource policies
> in NRPM
>per provisions in RSA, with revocation being a potential consequence of
> chronic
>non-compliance.
>
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> 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:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2017-5

[Rudolph Daniel]

"shall"

Ref: John's comment.
...
if left unaddressed on a chronic manner, could have
   me discussing the customer complaints as a sign of potential failure to
comply with
   number resource policy, including the consequences (i.e. potential
revocation of the IPv6 number resources.).

End quote.

Would ARIN legal have an issue with suggested consequence .above.. of
chronic failure to comply ?

rd


Sep 29, 2017 12:26 PM,  wrote:
>
> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
> arin-ppml@arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6
>   Registration Requirements (Michael Peddemors)
>2. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6
>   Registration Requirements (Michael Winters)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 07:55:57 -0700
> From: Michael Peddemors 
> To: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5:
> Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements
> Message-ID: <53f61942-1409-a7e1-0ffb-bd129d879...@linuxmagic.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> +1
>
> On 17-09-29 06:58 AM, Jason Schiller wrote:
> > David, Kevin,?Alison
> >
> > I am actually comfortable with an implementation that is short of
> > revocation,
> > but I am still not comfortable with "should".
> >
> > Should makes it optional.? Officially not being out of compliance with
> > ARIN policy makes it optional.
> >
> > I suggest that an ISP refusing to register a downstream customer
> > is out of compliance with ARIN policy, and not just choosing to ignore
> > an optional recommendation.
> >
> > If it is only "should" then an ISP can still hold the moral high ground
> > while refusing to support SWIP on the grounds that they will not
> > implement tooling and commit resources when it is only optional.
> >
> > It is a question of if you can hold someone accountable for not
> > complying or if they are free to ignore something that is optional.
> >
> >
> >
> > Owen, Chris, Kevin,
> >
> > Certainly if there is enough support to move this forward, we shouldn't
> > wait another cycle. (I recognize this weakens the "shall" position)
> >
> > My hope is if we can close out the discussion of this topic at the
meeting
> > with a clear understanding of if there is community support to move
forward
> > the policy with "shall" and also if there is clear support to move the
> > policy forward
> > with "should" in this cycle.? This will give the AC a maximum of
> > leverage to do
> > what is needed, and insure it doesn't fall to the next cycle by forcing
> > people
> > to support only what they perceive?as the best option.
> >
> > Assuming there is support for both "shall" and "should" the AC could
> > choose to move "shall" to last call, and if there are then issues, move
> > should to last call.
> >
> >
> > We need to get clear on how to structure the question here.
> >
> > My thoughts are
> >
> > 1. Do you support the policy with "shall" if it doesn't require an extra
> > cycle
> >  ? ? and support "should" in this cycle if "shall" cannot advance?
> >
> > 2. Do you only support the policy as written?
> >
> > 3. Do you oppose both the policy as written and with "shall"?
> >
> > When considering if there is enough support to move the policy as
> > written forward, the AC should consider the hands in both questions 1 &
2.
> >
> >
> > I support the policy with "shall" with a fall back to "should".
> >
> > __Jason
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 1:18 PM, David Farmer  > > wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Kevin if a bigger stick is need to ensure compliance in
> > the future we can take that step if/when there proves to be a
> > serious non-compliance?issue in the future. Personally, I'm not
> > ready to threaten revocation, in this case. My intent in suggesting
> > what is now 6.5.5.4 was to crate an avenue for ARIN Staff to
> > intervene with ISPs on behalf of customers, if a customer wanted
> > their assignment registered and their ISP refused to register their
> > assignment as requested, the customer can appeal the issue to ARIN.
> > I'm fine with that intervention being short of threatening
> > revocation, at least until their proves to be a serious issue with
> > ISP's refusing valid requests by endusers to register assignments.
> > I think the current language 

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2017-5

[Rudolph Daniel]

Jason /Chris
Thank you for the comment; good to go...I will go with "shall".


Rudi Daniel
*danielcharles consulting
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774>*



On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Jason Schiller <jschil...@google.com>
wrote:

> Rudi,
> Thanks for commenting on the "shall question".
>
> Chris,
>
> Can you comment on the "shall" question?
>
> Rudi,
>
> As it currently stands all static IPv6 customers with a /64 or more are
> SWIP'd
>
> "Each static IPv6 assignment containing a /64 or more addresses
> shall be registered in the WHOIS directory via SWIP"
>
> Dynamic customers don't get a re-assignment or re-allocation.
> Usually there is a large aggregate re-assigned to the ISP
> and designated as used by that ISP's customers in a given market.
>
>
> I imagine there are not very many customers with a static IPv6 address
> smaller than a /64 who would want their address SWIP'd, likely even less
> who plan to have static down stream customers, and certainly
> won't be multi-homing, or routing their space discreetly.
>
>
> In the unlikely event that there are, I expect there would be a 6 month
> time period pending implementation, and even after that point ARIN
> would happily work with ISPs who are working in good faith, and making
> progress towards removing hurdles to accomplish this.
>
> As it stands this proposed policy has a lower SWIP burden than the current
> one.
>
> ___Jason
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Chris Woodfield <ch...@semihuman.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Rudolph,
>>
>> My reading of the proposal is that the registration is triggered by the
>> request from the downstream recipient, which implies that if no prior
>> requests have been received, then there would be no duty to register.
>> Requests from downstreams received after the policy is implemented would be
>> subject to these terms.
>>
>> I’ll agree that this is ambiguous re: requests from downstreams received
>> prior to implementation, but in practical terms, I’d expect interested
>> downstreams  to be aware of the policy change and simply resubmit that
>> request, if the prior request was not granted.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -C
>>
>> On Sep 28, 2017, at 10:13 AM, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.dan...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I am in support of the policy proposal with "shall" but I would like to
>> know of possible negative impact if approved as policy; on the past
>> reassignments that were not SWIP ed.
>> Is this perceived as an issue; or will the policy be retroactive? Either
>> way.
>>
>>
>> Rudi Daniel
>> *danielcharles consulting
>> <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774>*
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:05 PM, <arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
>>> arin-ppml@arin.net
>>>
>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>> arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
>>>
>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>> arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
>>>
>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>>>
>>>
>>> Today's Topics:
>>>
>>>1. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6
>>>   Registration Requirements (Owen DeLong)
>>>2. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6
>>>   Registration Requirements (Owen DeLong)
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:46:01 -0500
>>> From: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>
>>> To: John Curran <jcur...@arin.net>
>>> Cc: Jason Schiller <jschil...@google.com>, "arin-ppml@arin.net"
>>> <arin-ppml@arin.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5:
>>> Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements
>>> Message-ID: <314b3dc2-87ba-434d-9eec-f2bd60f67...@delong.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>>
>>&

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2017-5

[Rudolph Daniel]

I am in support of the policy proposal with "shall" but I would like to
know of possible negative impact if approved as policy; on the past
reassignments that were not SWIP ed.
Is this perceived as an issue; or will the policy be retroactive? Either
way.


Rudi Daniel
*danielcharles consulting
*



On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:05 PM,  wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
> arin-ppml@arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6
>   Registration Requirements (Owen DeLong)
>2. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6
>   Registration Requirements (Owen DeLong)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:46:01 -0500
> From: Owen DeLong 
> To: John Curran 
> Cc: Jason Schiller , "arin-ppml@arin.net"
> 
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5:
> Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements
> Message-ID: <314b3dc2-87ba-434d-9eec-f2bd60f67...@delong.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Given this, I personally think that shall is the better choice of wording
> for 6.5.5.4.
>
> Owen
>
> > On Sep 27, 2017, at 4:59 PM, John Curran  wrote:
> >
> > On 26 Sep 2017, at 3:18 PM, Jason Schiller  > wrote:
> >>
> >> I oppose as written.
> >>
> >> There should not be a different standard of requirement for:
> >> - re-allocation
> >> - reassignment containing a /47 or more addresses
> >> - subdelegation of any size that will be individually announced
> >>
> >> which is "shall"
> >>
> >> and Registration Requested by Recipient
> >>
> >> which is "should"
> >>
> >> I would support if they are both "shall".
> >>
> >> Can ARIN staff discuss what actions it will take if an ISP's
> >> down stream customer contacts them and explains that their
> >> ISP refuses to SWIP their reassignment to them?
> >>
> >> Will they do anything more than reach out to the ISP and tell
> >> them they "should" SWIP it?
> >
> > Jason -
> >
> >If this policy change 2017-5 is adopted, then a provider that has
> IPv6 space from ARIN
> >but routinely fails to publish registration information (for /47 or
> larger reassignments)
> >would be in violation, and ARIN would have clear policy language that
> would enable
> >us to discuss with the ISP the need to publish this information in a
> timely manner.
> >
> >Service providers who blatantly ignore such a provision on an ongoing
> basis will be
> >in the enviable position of hearing me chat with them about their
> obligations to follow
> >ARIN number resource policy, including the consequences (i.e.
> potential revocation
> >of the IPv6 number resources.)
> >
> >If the langauge for the new section 6.5.5.4 "Registration Requested
> by Recipient?
> >reads ?? the ISP should register that assignment?, then ARIN would
> send on any
> >received customer complaint to the ISP, and remind the ISP that they
> should
> >follow number resource policy in this regard but not otherwise taking
> any action.
> >
> >If the language for the new section 6.5.5.4 "Registration Requested
> by Recipient?
> >reads ?? the ISP shall register that assignment?, then failure to do
> so would be
> >a far more serious matter that, if left unaddressed on a chronic
> manner, could have
> >me discussing the customer complaints as a sign of potential failure
> to comply with
> >number resource policy, including the consequences (i.e. potential
> revocation of
> >the IPv6 number resources.)
> >
> >I would note that the community should be very clear about its
> intentions for ISPs
> >with regard to customer requested reassignment publication, given
> there is large
> >difference in obligations that result from policy language choice.
>  ARIN staff remains,
> >as always, looking forward to implementing whatever policy emerges
> from the
> >consensus-based policy development process.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > /John
> >
> > John Curran
> > President and CEO
> > American Registry for Internet Numbers
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > 

Re: [arin-ppml] policy proposal 2017-4 removal of reciprocity requirements

[Rudolph Daniel]

Re: Milton
To correct potential imbalances of what Milton?
Can't be address space surely...that Arin is correcting, you...but I'm
happy to listen.

rd

On Sep 7, 2017 1:27 PM, "Mueller, Milton L"  wrote:

> I support this proposal.
>
> I am scratching my head at the apparent lack of logic in this claim:
>
> In addition, I am not convinced that it should be ARIN's role to correct
> perceived global RIR framework inbalances?
>
> The reciprocity requirement is the policy that makes it ARIN’s role to
> correct potential imbalances, not this policy. We need to remove those
> requirements.
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr. Milton L Mueller
>
> Professor, School of Public Policy 
>
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>
> Internet Governance Project
>
> http://internetgovernance.org/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We currently have a working policy strategy in this area, and I think we
> should stick with it for now.
> rd
>
>
>
> On Sep 7, 2017 9:39 AM,  wrote:
>
> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
> arin-ppml@arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Revised: ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for
>   Inter-RIR Transfers (Michael Winters)
>2. Re: Revised: ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for
>   Inter-RIR Transfers (Kevin Blumberg)
>3. Re: Revised: ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for
>   Inter-RIR Transfers (Mike Burns)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 12:21:01 +
> From: Michael Winters 
> To: "arin-ppml@arin.net" 
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity
> Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers
> Message-ID:
> <947590f72de642d690bb464342a2ea16@kz-mail01.manifold.
> edwardrosekzoo.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I am opposed to this policy.
>
> From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Chris
> Woodfield
> Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 5:19 PM
> To: Cj Aronson 
> Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity
> Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers
>
> This policy proposal seems, to me, as an attempt to correct a historical
> imbalance in the distribution of IPv4 resources to various RIRs, since the
> vast majority of legacy space - which, to my eyes, it seems that much of
> the transfer supply is originating from - is in the ARIN region.
>
> Given that, this policy only makes sense up to the point that such
> imbalance still exists. If we simply named the target RIRs, we could result
> in a (arguably theoretical) situation where Afrinic and Lacnic wind up
> transferring enough space to push their totals over the average but are
> still permitted to transfer space. if that were to happen, it would require
> a subsequent policy change to keep that imbalance from growing worse.
>
> As such, I support as written and would argue against an approach that
> targets specific RIRs by name.
>
> -C
>
> On Sep 6, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Cj Aronson  daydream.com>> wrote:
>
> Okay so this formula.. does it just give us Afrinic and Lacnic right?  So
> why don't we just say that?  Since there are only 5 RIRs it seems that
> maybe a formula isn't needed?
>
>
> {?,?}
>   (( ))
>   ?  ?
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:35 PM, ARIN >
> wrote:
> The following has been revised:
>
> * Draft Policy ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR
> Transfers
>
> Revised text is below and can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_4.html
>
> 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/policy/pdp.html
>
> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
>
> Regards,
>
> Sean Hopkins
> Policy Analyst
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR
> Transfers
>
> Version Date: 6 September 2017

Re: [arin-ppml] policy proposal 2017-4 removal of reciprocity requirements

[Rudolph Daniel]

I oppose the proposed policy.

Quoting Chris Woodfield (?)

where Afrinic and Lacnic wind up transferring enough space to push their
totals over the average but are still permitted to transfer space. if that
were to happen, it would require a subsequent policy change to keep that
imbalance from growing worse. end quote

In addition, I am not convinced that it should be ARIN's role to correct
perceived global RIR framework inbalances?

We currently have a working policy strategy in this area, and I think we
should stick with it for now.
rd

On Sep 7, 2017 9:39 AM,  wrote:

Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
arin-ppml@arin.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Revised: ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for
  Inter-RIR Transfers (Michael Winters)
   2. Re: Revised: ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for
  Inter-RIR Transfers (Kevin Blumberg)
   3. Re: Revised: ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for
  Inter-RIR Transfers (Mike Burns)


--

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 12:21:01 +
From: Michael Winters 
To: "arin-ppml@arin.net" 
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity
Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers
Message-ID:
<947590f72de642d690bb464342a2ea16@kz-mail01.manifold.
edwardrosekzoo.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I am opposed to this policy.

From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Chris
Woodfield
Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 5:19 PM
To: Cj Aronson 
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity
Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers

This policy proposal seems, to me, as an attempt to correct a historical
imbalance in the distribution of IPv4 resources to various RIRs, since the
vast majority of legacy space - which, to my eyes, it seems that much of
the transfer supply is originating from - is in the ARIN region.

Given that, this policy only makes sense up to the point that such
imbalance still exists. If we simply named the target RIRs, we could result
in a (arguably theoretical) situation where Afrinic and Lacnic wind up
transferring enough space to push their totals over the average but are
still permitted to transfer space. if that were to happen, it would require
a subsequent policy change to keep that imbalance from growing worse.

As such, I support as written and would argue against an approach that
targets specific RIRs by name.

-C

On Sep 6, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Cj Aronson > wrote:

Okay so this formula.. does it just give us Afrinic and Lacnic right?  So
why don't we just say that?  Since there are only 5 RIRs it seems that
maybe a formula isn't needed?


{?,?}
  (( ))
  ?  ?

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:35 PM, ARIN >
wrote:
The following has been revised:

* Draft Policy ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR
Transfers

Revised text is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_4.html

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/policy/pdp.html

Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html

Regards,

Sean Hopkins
Policy Analyst
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)



Draft Policy ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR
Transfers

Version Date: 6 September 2017

Problem Statement:

AFRINIC and LACNIC are currently considering one-way inter-RIR transfer
proposals. Those RIR communities feel a one-way policy a policy that allows
network operators in their regions to obtain space from another region and
transfer it into AFRINIC and LACNIC may best meet the needs of the
operators in that region.

ARIN staff, in reply to an inquiry from AFRINIC, have formally indicated
that ARINs 8.4 policy language will not allow ARIN to participate in such
one-way transfers. The staff formally indicate to AFRINIC that the word
reciprocal in 8.4 prohibits ARIN from 

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2017-5

[Rudolph Daniel]

In support of the new policy wording re: swip requirements.
 https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_5.html


Rudi Daniel



On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 1:16 PM, <arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net> wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
> arin-ppml@arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: ARIN-PPML 2017-6 draft policy (Mike Burns)
>2. Re: ARIN-PPML 2017-6 draft policy (Andrew Sullivan)
>3. Fwd: Advisory Council Meeting Results - August 2017 (ARIN)
>4. Re: Revised/Retitled: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6
>   Registration Requirements (hostmas...@uneedus.com)
>5. Re: Revised/Retitled: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6
>   Registration Requirements (Jason Schiller)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 14:14:33 -0400
> From: "Mike Burns" <m...@iptrading.com>
> To: "'Owen DeLong'" <o...@delong.com>
> Cc: "'Rudolph Daniel'" <rudi.dan...@gmail.com>, <arin-ppml@arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2017-6 draft policy
> Message-ID: <001e01d32029$802458d0$806d0a70$@iptrading.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Let?s not. This is a really bad idea and if we don?t put a stop to it now,
> it will likely never get corrected.
>
>
>
> Owen
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Owen,
>
>
>
> In almost 5 years of inter-regional transfers, David Farmer identified two
> transfers of /22s from ARIN into a one-way situation.
>
>
>
> At this rate, if it doesn?t ?get corrected?, in just 32 years a whole ARIN
> /16 will have disappeared!
>
> Not really that bad.
>
>
>
> On the other hand, blocking all transfers to APNIC *is* a really bad idea,
> as is strong-arming that registry *again* through the threat of preventing
> access to ARIN address space.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/
> attachments/20170828/902e6e0c/attachment-0001.html>
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 14:51:58 -0400
> From: Andrew Sullivan <a...@anvilwalrusden.com>
> To: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2017-6 draft policy
> Message-ID: <20170828185158.pdu5pp4zjwgn7...@mx4.yitter.info>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 02:14:33PM -0400, Mike Burns wrote:
> > Let?s not. This is a really bad idea and if we don?t put a stop to it
> now, it will likely never get corrected.
>
> What exactly needs to get corrected, then?  You are arguing from a
> slippery slope, but nobody seems to be slipping.
>
> A
>
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> a...@anvilwalrusden.com
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 15:20:53 -0400
> From: ARIN <i...@arin.net>
> To: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory Council Meeting Results - August
> 2017
> Message-ID: <2ae92228-c1ad-6d03-5a37-15e08573b...@arin.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> > The AC has abandoned the following Draft Policy:
> >
> > ARIN-2017-2: Removal of Community Networks
> >
> > The AC provided the following statement:
> >
> > "The ARIN Advisory Council has chosen to abandon Policy Proposal 2017-2,
> "Removal of Community Networks," due to lack of community support and the
> introduction of an alternative policy proposal to amend the definition of
> "community network."
> >
> > Anyone dissatisfied with this decision may initiate a petition. The
> deadline to begin a petition will be five business days after the AC's
> draft meeting minutes are published.
>
> >
> > The AC has abandoned the following Draft Policy:
> >
> > ARIN-2017-7: Retire Obsolete Section 4 from the NRPM
> >
> > The AC provided the following statement:
> >
> > "The ARIN Advisory Council has chosen to abandon Policy Proposal 2017-7,
> ?Re

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2017-8

[Rudolph Daniel]

Support changing the definition of community networks.

'The community network's focus should be providing connectivity
rather than achieving a profit'
Jos?

I am still absorbing the isoc language, but  'profit' is not the correct
terminology for a not- profitmaybe 'excess' ??

RD
On Aug 27, 2017 9:45 PM,  wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
> arin-ppml@arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-8: Amend the Definition
>   of Community Network (Carlton Samuels)
>2. Re: Expanding Scope? :Draft Policy ARIN-2017-8: Amend the
>   definition of Community Network (Jose R. de la Cruz III)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 10:00:06 -0500
> From: Carlton Samuels 
> To: ARIN 
> Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-8: Amend the
> Definition of Community Network
> Message-ID:
>  gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I support this change to the definition of community networks.
>
> -Carlton Samuels
>
>  source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=icon>
> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
>  source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=link>
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
>
> ==
> *Carlton A Samuels*
>
> *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment &
> Turnaround*
> =
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:22 AM, ARIN  wrote:
>
> > The following has been revised:
> >
> > * Draft Policy ARIN-2017-8: Amend the Definition of Community Network
> >
> > Revised text is below and can be found at:
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_8.html
> >
> > 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/policy/pdp.html
> >
> > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Sean Hopkins
> > Policy Analyst
> > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> >
> >
> >
> > Draft Policy ARIN-2017-8: Amend the Definition of Community Network
> >
> > Problem Statement:
> >
> > The Community Networks section of the NRPM has not been used since
> > implementation in January 2010. Proposal ARIN-2016-7, to increase the
> > number of use cases, was abandoned by the Advisory Council due to lack of
> > feedback. Proposal ARIN 2017-2, to remove all mention of community
> networks
> > from NRPM was met with opposition by the community. Many responded that
> the
> > definition of ?community network? was too narrow, which could be the
> reason
> > for lack of uptake.
> >
> > Policy statement:
> >
> > CURRENT NRPM TEXT:
> >
> > ?2.11. Community Network
> >
> > A community network is any network organized and operated by a volunteer
> > group operating as or under the fiscal support of a nonprofit
> organization
> > or university for the purpose of providing free or low-cost connectivity
> to
> > the residents of their local service area. To be treated as a community
> > network under ARIN policy, the applicant must certify to ARIN that the
> > community network staff is 100% volunteers.?
> >
> > NEW NRPM TEXT:
> >
> > ?2.11 Community Network
> >
> > A community network is a network organized and operated by a volunteer
> > group, not-for-profit, non-profit, charitable organization, or
> educational
> > institution for the purpose of providing free or low-cost connectivity,
> or
> > other Information Technology services to persons or entities within their
> > community. Critical functions may be handled by paid staff, but
> volunteers
> > play a large role in offering services available through community
> > networks.?
> >
> > Comments:
> >
> > Timetable for implementation: Immediate
> > 

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2017-6 draft policy

[Rudolph Daniel]

Thank you Owen, and I remember those exact words when the policy was
formulated and I accept that too. Of course, the community did not, at that
time see the loop hole we are currently trying to close. So I was being
cautious in that whilst we can modify the wording, to achieve a close, is
arin staff also confident that it can be implemented. Of course I also
appreciate that what ever we as a community do, there is always some out
there looking or searching for yet another loop hole.
rd


Rudi Daniel
*danielcharles consulting
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774>*



On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 6:15 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote:

> It is achievable because ARIN will evaluate the policy of each RIR in this
> regard prior to approving the transfer.
>
> Owen
>
> On Aug 18, 2017, at 12:36 , Rudolph Daniel <rudi.dan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> " Recipient RIR policy must not permit transfers to other RIRs or NIRs
> whose policies do not support bi-directional transfers."
>
> Whereas I am in support of closing this loophole, I cannot be sure that
> this is actually achievable...
> rd
>
> On Aug 17, 2017 6:01 PM, <arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net> wrote:
>
>> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
>> arin-ppml@arin.net
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>1. Re: Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of
>>   Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
>>   (Paul McNary)
>>2. Draft Policy 2017-6: Improve Reciprocity Requirements for
>>   Inter RIR Transfers (WOOD Alison * DAS)
>>3. Re: Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of
>>   Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
>>   (hostmas...@uneedus.com)
>>4. Re: Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of
>>   Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
>>   (David Farmer)
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 15:49:47 -0500
>> From: Paul McNary <pmcn...@cameron.net>
>> To: "arin-ppml@arin.net" <arin-ppml@arin.net>
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5:
>> Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4
>> and
>> IPv6
>> Message-ID: <7460ee99-c116-7c0a-b726-2267de135...@cameron.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>>
>> Sorry I typed the numbers backwards, yes, that is what I meant. :-)
>>
>> A /48 is smaller than a /47 and would not be required to be registered?
>> A /47 would need to be
>>
>>
>> On 8/17/2017 1:30 PM, Chris Woodfield wrote:
>> > The opposite - a /47 is 2 /48s aggregated.
>> >
>> > -C
>> >
>> >> On Aug 17, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Paul McNary <pmcn...@cameron.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> A /47 is smaller than a /48 and would not be required to be registered?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 8/17/2017 12:50 PM, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote:
>> >>> I note that any ISP size reassignment, with the recommended /48 for
>> each end user site, will be /47 or larger, which must always be registered.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thus, I think 6.5.5.5 language is unneeded, since any LIR/ISP
>> reassignment will be large enough to already trigger registration.
>> >>>
>> >>> Under the current policy, LIR's and ISP's are equal, so usually both
>> terms are stated in any policy that mentions them.
>> >>>
>> >>> May I also suggest that if we are going to require registration upon
>> downstream request for IPv6, that we consider placing the same language and
>> requirements for IPv4 customers as well?  And if we do, where do we draw
>> the minimum line?  Maybe a /32
>> >>>
>> >>> Also, good catch on the cut and paste error.
>> >>>
>> >>> Albert Erdmann
>> >

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements

[Rudolph Daniel]

In general support of 2017-5 draft as written.
rd

On Aug 15, 2017 2:10 PM,  wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
> arin-ppml@arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. NRPM 2017.4: New Policies Implemented (ARIN)
>2. Weekly posting summary for p...@arin.net (nar...@us.ibm.com)
>3. Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment
>   Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 (ARIN)
>4. Re: Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of
>   Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
>   (David Huberman)
>5. Re: Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of
>   Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
>   (Chris Woodfield)
>6. Re: Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of
>   Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
>   (Austin Murkland)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 11:08:52 -0400
> From: ARIN 
> To: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] NRPM 2017.4: New Policies Implemented
> Message-ID: <5989d404.7000...@arin.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> On 22 June 2017, the Board of Trustees adopted the following Recommended
> Draft Policies:
>
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative simplified criteria
> for justifying small IPv4 transfers
>
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-9: Streamline Merger & Acquisition
> Transfers
>
> These policies are now in effect. A new version of the ARIN Number
> Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) has been published to the ARIN website.
>
> NRPM version 2017.4 is effective 8 August 2017 and supersedes the
> previous version.
>
> The NRPM is available at:
>
> https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html
>
> Board minutes are available at:
>
> https://www.arin.net/about_us/bot/index.html
>
> Draft policies and proposals are available at:
>
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/
>
> The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) is available at:
>
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>
> Regards,
>
> Sean Hopkins
> Policy Analyst
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 00:53:23 -0400
> From: nar...@us.ibm.com
> To: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for p...@arin.net
> Message-ID: <201708110453.v7b4rn95010...@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Total of 2 messages in the last 7 days.
>
> script run at: Fri Aug 11 00:53:18 EDT 2017
>
> Messages   |  Bytes| Who
> +--++--+
>  50.00% |1 | 57.15% | 8155 | nar...@us.ibm.com
>  50.00% |1 | 42.85% | 6114 | i...@arin.net
> +--++--+
> 100.00% |2 |100.00% |14269 | Total
>
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:06:58 -0400
> From: ARIN 
> To: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization
> of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
> Message-ID: <59932a32.8010...@arin.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> The following has been revised:
>
> * Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration
> requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
>
> Revised text is below and can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_5.html
>
> 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/policy/pdp.html
>
> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
>
> Regards,
>
> Sean Hopkins
> Policy Analyst
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
>
>
> Problem Statement:
>
> Current ARIN policy has different WHOIS directory registration
> requirements for IPv4 vs IPv6 address assignments. IPv4 registration is
> triggered for an assignment of any address block equal to or greater
> 

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2017-2

[Rudolph Daniel]

If it aint broken why try to fix it...is one scenario, the other is, we
could modify the requirements to make it usable down line. IPv6 and IOT
promises new network topologies, that is also a considerarion.

The basic principle of community networks is I think one of the pillars of
the internet for the public good..

So modify it, change it, move the goal posts if you will, but I dont
believe that it is the best interest of the internet community to delete
policy or provision for community networks.
RD

On Jun 16, 2017 11:04 AM, <arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net> wrote:

Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
arin-ppml@arin.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: ARIN_2017-2 (Cj Aronson)


--

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 09:03:57 -0600
From: Cj Aronson <c...@daydream.com>
To: Martin Hannigan <hanni...@gmail.com>
Cc: Rudolph Daniel <rudi.dan...@gmail.com>, "arin-ppml@arin.net"
<arin-ppml@arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN_2017-2
Message-ID:
<cac6jzkqy1tdkk7lylbobhqrbdl4v2qcefub5v0q1+3w5qhx...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

It came up because in the entire history of the Community Networks policy
it has never been used once.  So either it's not needed or it needs to be
changed so that it serves some part of the community.

-Cathy


{?,?}
  (( ))
  ?  ?

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Martin Hannigan <hanni...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> Agreed. I can't think of a good reason why this came up to be honest.
> "Simplification" == "time sink" != value.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -M<
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 10:43 Rudolph Daniel <rudi.dan...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> For clarity, I do not support the proposal as written and I would never
>> be in support of removing community networks from the policy manual.
>> RD
>>
>> On Friday, June 16, 2017, <arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net> wrote:
>> > Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
>> > arin-ppml@arin.net
>> >
>> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> > arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
>> >
>> > You can reach the person managing the list at
>> > arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
>> >
>> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> > than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>> >
>> >
>> > Today's Topics:
>> >
>> >1. When the abuse continues (Marilson)
>> >2. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-2: Removal of Community Networks
>> >   (hostmas...@uneedus.com)
>> >3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-2: Removal of Community Networks
>> >   (Steven Ryerse)
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Message: 1
>> > Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 09:09:36 -0300
>> > From: "Marilson" <marilson.m...@gmail.com>
>> > To: <arin-ppml@arin.net>
>> > Subject: [arin-ppml] When the abuse continues
>> > Message-ID: <2F43E6043BA4477C96612145B9A5F4DA@xPC>
>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>> >
>> > On June 12, 2017 1:15 PM Albert wrote:
>> >> If you were the administrator and you did what you said after a
>> report, I
>> > would see the abuse stopped (in this case simply beacuse you cut that
>> user
>> > off), I would consider that a success, not a failure.  When I send a
>> > report, stopping the abuse is more important than an email response.
>> >
>> >> ...If a reasonable time goes by and I still have not seen the
>> connection
>> > attempts stop, I see this as ignoring abuse reports, and this is what I
>> > speak of.
>> >
>> > I need a little help. What should we do, whom should we complain about,
>> when abuse continues? Please consider the fact that although there are no
>> borders on the internet, nations still have borders and their own
>> jurisdicti

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN_2017-2

[Rudolph Daniel]

For clarity, I do not support the proposal as written and I would never be
in support of removing community networks from the policy manual.
RD

On Friday, June 16, 2017,  wrote:
> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
> arin-ppml@arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. When the abuse continues (Marilson)
>2. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-2: Removal of Community Networks
>   (hostmas...@uneedus.com)
>3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-2: Removal of Community Networks
>   (Steven Ryerse)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 09:09:36 -0300
> From: "Marilson" 
> To: 
> Subject: [arin-ppml] When the abuse continues
> Message-ID: <2F43E6043BA4477C96612145B9A5F4DA@xPC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> On June 12, 2017 1:15 PM Albert wrote:
>> If you were the administrator and you did what you said after a report, I
> would see the abuse stopped (in this case simply beacuse you cut that user
> off), I would consider that a success, not a failure.  When I send a
> report, stopping the abuse is more important than an email response.
>
>> ...If a reasonable time goes by and I still have not seen the connection
> attempts stop, I see this as ignoring abuse reports, and this is what I
> speak of.
>
> I need a little help. What should we do, whom should we complain about,
when abuse continues? Please consider the fact that although there are no
borders on the internet, nations still have borders and their own
jurisdiction.
>
> Thanks
> Marilson
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170616/12b4e17d/attachment-0001.html
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 10:09:58 -0400 (EDT)
> From: hostmas...@uneedus.com
> To: Alfredo Calderon 
> Cc: "arin-ppml@arin.net" 
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-2: Removal of
> Community Networks
> Message-ID: 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-unknown"; Format="flowed"
>
> I caution this writer and anyone else responding to Draft Policy
> ARIN-2017-2 of the following:
>
> Anyone in FAVOR of ARIN-2017-2 is in favor of elimination of all language
> that is currently in the policy manual regarding community networks.
>
> The comments below seem to be in favor of some kind of community networks
> remaining with positive policy and regulatory treatment, a position that
> seems to be the opposite of being in favor of elimination of the community
> network policy in total.
>
> Most of the comments, including mine is actually AGAINST elimination of
> the community network aspects of the policy manual contained in 2017-2,
> with the idea to propose better definitions in the existing policy,
> keeping that policy, lowering the 100% volunteer requirement, and other
> things to make that policy so that actual community networks can use it.
>
> Since I am unclear of what you intended, please try to better express your
> exact position in regard to if you intended to be in favor of striking the
> community network portions from the policy manual in total, or are you in
> favor of some kind of amendments that will make the existing language more
> useable by these community networks?
>
> Albert Erdmann
> Network Administrator
> Paradise On Line Inc.
>
>
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Alfredo Calderon wrote:
>
>> I also believe that in some regions within U.S. and its territories
there has been a lack of engaging and announcing the opportunities
available for Community Networks.  During our ARIN on the Roar in San Juan,
Puerto Rico we will make it a point to enphasize it.
>>
>> Sent from my "iPad Air"
>>
>> Alfredo Calder??n
>> Email: calderon.alfr...@gmail.com
>> Twylah: http://www.twylah.com/acalderon52
>> Twitter: acalderon52
>> Skype: Alfredo_1212
>> Business card: http://myonepage.com/ acalderon
>> Scoop.it: http://www.scoop.it/t/aprendiendo-a-distancia
>> Blog: http://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com
>> Twitter news: http://paper.li/ acalderon52
>>
>>> On Jun 13, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Carlton Samuels 
wrote:
>>>
>>> For the record, we have been promoting a positive policy and regulatory
embrace of community networks in Caribbean jurisdictions for a long while.
The context is service disparities 

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2017-2

[Rudolph Daniel]

I oppose this draft policy on the grounds expressed by a few others here..I
would like to see ARIN keep community networks and look at a redefinition
of .
I agree also that there is perhaps a need to also rework the 100%
requirement but be also mindful of possible abuse in doing so.
RD
On Jun 13, 2017 11:43 PM,  wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
> arin-ppml@arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-2: Removal of Community Networks
>   (Marita Moll)
>2. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-2: Removal of Community Networks
>   (Jason Schiller)
>3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-2: Removal of Community Networks
>   (hostmas...@uneedus.com)
>4. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-2: Removal of Community Networks
>   (Marita Moll)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:57:20 -0400
> From: Marita Moll 
> To: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-2: Removal of
> Community Networks
> Message-ID: 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> Hello all. As part of NARALO, I attended the ARIN mtg in New Orleans and
> became aware of the policy re: community networks. I don't have all the
> details others can contribute. But I have been involved on the policy
> side with community networks in Canada for 20 years, so can provide a
> small slice of context from here.
>
> I totally agree that community networks see a lot of value in being
> recognized in ARIN policy. The few are doing well, others struggle to
> exist.  But they have been and in some areas are still an important part
> of the Internet access landscape. It is difficult, as it is, to even
> locate these scattered entities. Deleting language the recognizes their
> existence would be a shame.
>
> The 100% volunteer driven requirement is not realistic. I don't know
> what it should be. Even 70% volunteer driven might not bring in much
> more activity in the short term but it would be a recognition that the
> non-profit/cooperative model is a viable option for communities trying
> to manage their own access issues.
>
> Marita Moll
>
> Telecommunities Canada (loose coalition of community networks in Canada)
>
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:  attachments/20170613/c2530e50/attachment-0001.html>
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 22:35:23 -0400
> From: Jason Schiller 
> To: Marita Moll 
> Cc: "arin-ppml@arin.net" 
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-2: Removal of
> Community Networks
> Message-ID:
>  g...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Marita,
>
> I take to message to mean having ARIN policy for community networks
> is helpful, and the policy is not used by community networks, because
> the 100% volunteer requirement disqualifies many who would benefit
> which is why the policy has gone unused.
>
> The next step is coming up with a definition that will support community
> networks, but not allow other organizations to abuse the definition as a
> loophole.
>
> The conversation needs to shift to how do we define "community networks"
> in a useful way.
>
> Propose a definition for community networks.
>
> Can you borrow from other definitions of community networks
> that you come across in your sphere, such as  say the tax codes,
> or access to some other privilege that community networks may
> be granted?
>
> I suspect the ARIN community would be happy dropping the volunteer
> requirement if there was some other way to separate out things
> that are community networks.
>
> __Jason
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Marita Moll  wrote:
>
> > Hello all. As part of NARALO, I attended the ARIN mtg in New Orleans and
> > became aware of the policy re: community networks. I don't have all the
> > details others can contribute. But I have been involved on the policy
> side
> > with community networks in Canada for 20 years, so can provide a small
> > slice of context from here.
> >
> > I totally agree that community networks see a lot of value in being
> > recognized in ARIN policy. The few are doing well, others struggle to
> > 

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2027-3

[Rudolph Daniel]

Support much if this proposal, but agree with John re: removal of non
responsive contacts from the database. I think removal may create a worse
condition ..at least, there is data present, albeit unresponsive..but still
a kickoff point for further investigation.
I don't know if there needs to be a different consideration for non
responsive legacy holders(?)
If you have not signed an rsa and still have unresponsive poc, my thinking
is that staff should regard this as priority conditions for investigating(?)
RD
___
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:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2016-3

[Rudolph Daniel]

I support the proposed as written.
rd

On Apr 18, 2017 10:25 PM,  wrote:

Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
arin-ppml@arin.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3:
  Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4
  Transfers (Brett Frankenberger)
   2. Re: LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3:
  Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4
  Transfers (Owen DeLong)
   3. Re: LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3:
  Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4
  Transfers (Martin Hannigan)
   4. Re: LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3:
  Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4
  Transfers (Scott Leibrand)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 19:01:05 -0500
From: Brett Frankenberger 
To: ARIN , "arin-ppml@arin.net" 
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy
ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small
IPv4
Transfers
Message-ID: <20170419000105.ga1...@panix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 05 April 2017 and decided to
> send the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call:
>
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for
> Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
>
> 8.5.7 Alternative Additional IPv4 Address Block Criteria
>
> In lieu of 8.5.5 and 8.5.6, organizations may qualify for additional IPv4
> address blocks by demonstrating 80% utilization of their currently
> allocated space. If they do so, they qualify to receive one or more
> transfers up to the total size of their current ARIN IPv4 address
holdings,
> with a maximum size of /16.
>
> An organization may qualify via 8.5.7 for a total of a /16 equivalent in
> any 6 month period.

Little late in the game for this, I know, but this language appears
ambiguous as to whether or not end-users are permitted to use this
policy.  "Organizations" is inclusive of end users, but "allocated" (in
"allocated space") could be read to exclude organizations that only
have assignments.  Given the general intent of other 8.x policies to
include end users and providers, I would assume that is the intent here
(both other 8.x policies generally don't mention allocations without
assignments or vice versa).  Perhaps "allocated" should be edited to
read "allocated or assigned" or something similar.  (Or "transferred,
allocated, or assigned" to maintain consistency with 8.3 and 8.4.)

Maybe it's not an issue; perhaps ARIN could comment as to whether or
not, if this policy were implemented as currently written, they would
allow end-users to qualify for transfers under 8.5.7.

I support this policy if it applies equally to end users and providers.

 -- Brett


--

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 18:29:35 -0700
From: Owen DeLong 
To: Brett Frankenberger 
Cc: "arin-ppml@arin.net" 
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy
ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small
IPv4
Transfers
Message-ID: <6fb07699-24c2-4d1d-907a-883ef4b0f...@delong.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8


> On Apr 18, 2017, at 17:01 , Brett Frankenberger 
wrote:
>
>> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 05 April 2017 and decided to
>> send the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call:
>>
>> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for
>> Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
>>
>> 8.5.7 Alternative Additional IPv4 Address Block Criteria
>>
>> In lieu of 8.5.5 and 8.5.6, organizations may qualify for additional IPv4
>> address blocks by demonstrating 80% utilization of their currently
>> allocated space. If they do so, they qualify to receive one or more
>> transfers up to the total size of their current ARIN IPv4 address
holdings,
>> with a maximum size of /16.
>>
>> An organization may qualify via 8.5.7 for a total of a /16 equivalent in
>> any 6 month period.
>
> Little late in the game for this, I know, but this language appears
> ambiguous as to whether or not end-users are permitted to use this
> policy.  "Organizations" is inclusive of end users, but "allocated" (in
> "allocated space") could be read to exclude 

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN 2016-8 Removal of indirect POC

[Rudolph Daniel]

I oppose the policy as written.

I have to agree with Owen on this one...In that it does not sound like
palatable solution to the problem aired.
Although, a change to 'may be sent'  is similar to 'will not be sent'.

Is there some other annual event which can be used to impose POC update at
the same time (??)
rd

On Jan 19, 2017 4:39 PM,  wrote:

Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
arin-ppml@arin.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2016-8: Removal of Indirect POC
  Validation Requirement (Chris Woodfield)
   2. ARIN Response to AFRINIC on Policy compatibility (ARIN)
   3. Weekly posting summary for p...@arin.net (nar...@us.ibm.com)
   4. Re: Draft Policy 2016-7 -- Integrate community networks into
  Existing ISP Policy (David Farmer)
   5. Re: ARIN Response to AFRINIC on Policy compatibility
  (David R Huberman)


--

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 09:58:12 -0800
From: Chris Woodfield 
To: ARIN , arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-8: Removal of Indirect
POC Validation Requirement
Message-ID: <44bcdcd7-5449-443b-9f97-c57b87116...@semihuman.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

Is the presence of the phrase ?will be sent? in the current policy intended
to set a requirement for the POC (this email will be sent annually, you
must reply to it in order to validate the record), or intended as a
requirement for ARIN staff (ARIN is required to send the email annually)?

To the concept of the random audit approach mentioned earlier, It may be
simple enough to change ?will be sent? to ?may be sent?. I?d argue that
procedurally the sampling rate should be fairly high, however (i.e. no less
than, say, 20% of records).

-C

> On Jan 5, 2017, at 12:46 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>
> I oppose the policy as written.
>
> While I agree that the validation of indirect POCs by ARIN has become a
problem, I believe that this is the exact opposite of a good solution.
>
> Indeed, my organization has a significant problem with vendors creating
indirect POC records pointing to individuals within my organization who are
not good POCs for the space in question rather than using our existing POC
handles which we have provided to those vendors.
>
> The current POC validation process is one of the few checks and balances
which allows us to catch and address these issues.
>

P.S. Personally, I?d argue that a viable alternate strategy in the absence
of that check/balance would be to make sure that the requirement to use
your official POCs is written into your vendor contracts at next renewal,
and operationally onto a service acceptance checklist backed up by said
contract language.

> Ideally, we would like to have a way for ARIN to flag and validate new
POCs pointed at our organization _BEFORE_ they are actually placed into the
database or attached to resources.
>
> Owen
>
>> On Dec 20, 2016, at 10:09 , ARIN  wrote:
>>
>> On 15 December 2016, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the
following Proposal to Draft Policy status:
>>
>> ARIN-prop-233: Removal of Indirect POC Validation Requirement
>>
>> This Draft Policy has been numbered and titled:
>>
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2016-8: Removal of Indirect POC Validation Requirement
>>
>> Draft Policy text is below and can be found at:
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_8.html
>>
>> 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/policy/pdp.html
>>
>> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Sean Hopkins
>> Policy Analyst
>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>>
>> ##
>>
>> ARIN-2016-8: Removal of Indirect POC Validation Requirement
>>
>> Problem Statement:
>>
>> There are over 600,000 POCs registered in Whois that are only associated
with indirect assignments (reassignments) and indirect allocations
(reallocations). NRPM 3.6 requires ARIN to contact all 600,000+ of these
every year to validate the POC information. 

Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-6 ARIN-PPML

[Rudolph Daniel]

Ref:
2. Replace the Community Networks section with a generic small ISP policy
allowing allocations of /40 (qualifying for xxx-small IPv6 fee category);

Is there any community support for above?

rd
Apologies for the previous post, it's difficult to find my comment as
posted.

>>
>>1. Rewrite the Community Networks section to not reference HD-Ratio,
as the Draft Policy suggests;
>>2. Replace the Community Networks section with a generic small ISP
policy allowing allocations of /40 (qualifying for xxx-small IPv6 fee
category);
>>3. Remove the Community Networks section all together; It doesn't
seem to have been used since it was adopted, see Dan Alexander's Policy
Simplification presentation, slide #4. If we go this way, 2.11 should be
deleted also;
>>
>
>
___
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:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2016-4

[Rudolph Daniel]

Re: 2016-4
I am in support of the policy proposal as stated.
rd

On Jul 26, 2016 9:22 AM,  wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
> arin-ppml@arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants
>   (Brian Jones)
>2. Weekly posting summary for p...@arin.net (nar...@us.ibm.com)
>3. Advisory Council Meeting Results - July 2016 (ARIN)
>4. Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM (ARIN)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 21:11:54 -0400
> From: Brian Jones 
> To: John Springer <3jo...@gmail.com>
> Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new
> entrants
> Message-ID:
>  vmadkhdaaxwpx-tcj...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Support.
>
> On Jul 20, 2016 3:39 PM, "John Springer" <3jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear PPML,
> >
> > ARIN-2016-4 was accepted as a Draft Policy in June.
> >
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_4.html
> >
> > Expressions of support or opposition to the DP are solicited to assist in
> > evaluating what to do with it in the run up to the meeting in Dallas.
> >
> > At the moment, it appears technically sound and fair to me, but
> > expressions of support will be required to advance.
> >
> > Thank you in advance.
> >
> > John Springer
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 8:40 AM, ARIN  wrote:
> >
> >> On 16 June 2016 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following
> >> Proposal to Draft Policy status:
> >>
> >> ARIN-prop-229: Transfers for new entrants
> >>
> >> This Draft Policy has been numbered and titled:
> >>
> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants
> >>
> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4 is below and can be found at:
> >> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_4.html
> >>
> >> 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/policy/pdp.html
> >>
> >> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
> >> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Communications and Member Services
> >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> >>
> >> ##
> >>
> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants
> >>
> >> Date: 21 June, 2016
> >> Problem Statement:
> >>
> >> New organizations without existing IPv4 space may not always be able to
> >> qualify for an initial allocation under NRPM 4.2, particularly if they
> are
> >> categorized as ISPs and subject to 4.2.2.1.1. Use of /24. Now that
> ARIN's
> >> free pool is exhausted, 4.2.1.6. Immediate need states that "These cases
> >> are exceptional", but that is no longer correct. End user organizations
> >> requiring less a /24 of address space may also be unable to acquire
> space
> >> from their upstream ISP, and may instead need to receive a /24 from ARIN
> >> via transfer.
> >>
> >> Policy statement:
> >>
> >> Replace Section 4.2.2 with:
> >>
> >> 4.2.2. Initial allocation to ISPs
> >>
> >> "All ISP organizations without direct assignments or allocations from
> >> ARIN qualify for an initial allocation of up to a /21, subject to ARIN's
> >> minimum allocation size. Organizations may qualify for a larger initial
> >> allocation by documenting how the requested allocation will be utilized
> >> within 24 months for specified transfers, or three months otherwise.
> ISPs
> >> renumbering out of their previous address space will be given a
> reasonable
> >> amount of time to do so, and any blocks they are returning will not
> count
> >> against their utilization.
> >>
> >> Replace Section 4.3.2 to read:
> >>
> >> 4.3.2 Minimum assignment
> >>
> >> ARIN's minimum assignment for end-user organizations is a /24.
> >>
> >> End-user organizations without direct assignments or allocations from
> >> ARIN qualify for an initial assignment of ARIN's minimum assignment
> size.
> >>
> >> Replace the first two sentences of Section 4.3.3. 

[arin-ppml] Last call 2015-3

[Rudolph Daniel]

I am in support of this draft: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in
end-user IPv4 policy.
RD
On Apr 26, 2016 11:48 PM,  wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
> arin-ppml@arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Advisory Council Meeting Results - April 2016 (ARIN)
>2. LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30
>   day utilization requirement in end-user IPv4 policy (ARIN)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 14:38:35 -0400
> From: ARIN 
> To: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - April 2016
> Message-ID: <571e642b.5000...@arin.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN
> Advisory Council (AC) met on 20 April 2016.
>
> The AC moved the following to last call (to be posted separately to last
> call):
>
>Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in
> end-user IPv4 policy
>
> The AC abandoned the following:
>
>Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for
> Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks
>
> The AC provided the following statement. "The ARIN AC abandoned 2015-9
> because there was insufficient community support to bring the proposal
> forward and there did not appear to be any potential changes to the
> proposal that were likely to significantly improve the level of support."
>
> The AC is continuing to work on:
>
>Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to
> Specified Recipients)
>Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated
> need for IPv4 transfers
>Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy
>
> The AC abandoned 2015-9. Anyone dissatisfied with this decision may
> initiate a petition. The deadline to begin a petition will be five
> business days after the AC's draft meeting minutes are published. For
> more information on starting and participating in petitions, see PDP
> Petitions at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_petitions.html
>
> Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
>
> The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>
> Regards,
>
> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 14:38:49 -0400
> From: ARIN 
> To: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy
> ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in end-user IPv4
> policy
> Message-ID: <571e6439.7010...@arin.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 20 April 2016 and decided to
> send the following to last call:
>
>Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization
> requirement in end-user IPv4 policy
>
> Feedback is encouraged during the last call period. All comments should
> be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. This last call will
> expire on 9 May 2016. After last call the AC will conduct their
> last call review.
>
> The draft policy text is below and available at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/
>
> The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>
> Regards,
>
> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
> ## * ##
>
>
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3
> Remove 30 day utilization requirement in end-user IPv4 policy
>
> AC's assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number
> Resource Policy:
>
> ARIN 2015-3 contributes to fair and impartial number resource
> administration by removing from the NRPM text that is operationally
> unrealistic for the reasons discussed in the problem statement. This
> proposal is technically sound, in that the removal of the text will more
> closely align with the way staff applies the existing policy in relation
> to 8.3 transfers. There was strong community support for the policy on
> PPML and at ARIN 36, which was confirmed at ARIN 37. There was a
> suggestion to replace this text with an alternate requirement. However,
> the community consensus was to move forward with the removal alone.
>
> The staff and legal review also suggested removing RFC2050 

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

[Rudolph Daniel]

Question: how often does Arin staff encounter this anomaly if I can call it
that?

RD
On Apr 11, 2016 12:00 PM,  wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
> arin-ppml@arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Revision to Text of Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2 (Christian Tacit)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 14:50:32 +
> From: Christian Tacit 
> To: "arin-ppml@arin.net" 
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Revision to Text of Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2
> Message-ID: <9851d5ee8a334febaf54742028e5bb1b@S05-MBX03-12.S05.local>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Dear Community Members:
> I am writing to advise of additional changes made today to the text of
> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2.
> In the Staff and Legal analysis obtained, General Counsel expressed
> concerns about the proposed definitions of "affiliated" and "control". In
> light of these concerns and other efforts to simplify the text further, I
> have amended the text once again. The new amendments achieve the same
> intent as the previous language using much simpler and more concise
> language. The revised draft proposal is:
>
> "Problem Statement:
>
> Organizations that obtain a 24 month supply of IP addresses via the
> transfer market and then have an unexpected change in business plan are
> unable to move IP addresses to the proper RIR within the first 12 months of
> receipt.
>
> Policy statement:
> Replace 8.4, bullet 4, to read:
> "Source entities within the ARIN region must not have received a transfer,
> allocation, or assignment of IPv4 number resources from ARIN for the 12
> months prior to the approval of a transfer request, unless either the
> source and recipient entities own or control each other or are under common
> ownership or control. This restriction does not include M transfers."
> Comments: Organizations that obtain a 24 month supply of IP addresses via
> the transfer market and then have an unexpected change in business plan are
> unable to move IP addresses to the proper RIR within the first 12 months of
> receipt. The need to move the resources does not flow from ARIN policy, but
> rather from the requirement of certain registries outside the ARIN region
> to have the resources moved in order to be used there.
> The intention of this change is to allow organizations to perform
> inter-RIR transfers of space received via an 8.3 transfer regardless of the
> date transferred to ARIN. A common example is that an organization acquires
> a block located in the ARIN region, transfers it to ARIN, then 3 months
> later, the organization announces that it wants to launch new services out
> of region. Under current policy, the organization is prohibited from moving
> some or all of those addresses to that region's Whois if there is a need to
> move them to satisfy the rules of the other region requiring the movement
> of the resources to that region in order for them to be used there.
> Instead, the numbers are locked in ARIN's Whois. It's important to note
> that 8.3 transfers are approved for a 24 month supply, and it would not be
> unheard of for a business model to change within the first 12 months after
> approval. The proposal also introduces a requirement for an affiliation
> relationship between the source and r
>  ecipient entity, based on established corporate law principles, so as to
> make it reasonably likely that eliminating the 12 month anti-flip period in
> that situation will meet the needs of organizations that operate networks
> in more than one region without encouraging abuse.
> a. Timetable for implementation: Immediate
> b. Anything else: N/A"
> Chris Tacit
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20160411/d3ecf3f6/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> --
>
> ___
> ARIN-PPML mailing list
> ARIN-PPML@arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>
> End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 130, Issue 18
> **
>
___
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:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience 

Re: [arin-ppml] Seasons Greetings & a successful New Year.

[Rudolph Daniel]

To all on list. :)
RD
On Dec 22, 2015 3:46 PM,  wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
> arin-ppml@arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Weekly posting summary for p...@arin.net (Thomas Narten)
>2. Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2015 (ARIN)
>3. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-11: Remove transfer
>   language which only applied pre-exhaustion of IPv4 pool (ARIN)
>4. Re: Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2015
>   (David Huberman)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 00:53:02 -0500
> From: Thomas Narten 
> To: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for p...@arin.net
> Message-ID: <201512180553.tbi5r3qv006...@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Total of 4 messages in the last 7 days.
>
> script run at: Fri Dec 18 00:53:02 EST 2015
>
> Messages   |  Bytes| Who
> +--++--+
>  25.00% |1 | 40.51% |29463 | o...@delong.com
>  25.00% |1 | 30.04% |21850 | ron.bai...@yahoo.com
>  25.00% |1 | 19.79% |14392 | sprin...@inlandnet.com
>  25.00% |1 |  9.67% | 7033 | nar...@us.ibm.com
> +--++--+
> 100.00% |4 |100.00% |72738 | Total
>
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 14:25:42 -0500
> From: ARIN 
> To: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2015
> Message-ID: <5679a3b6.8020...@arin.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN
> Advisory Council (AC) met on 17 December 2015.
>
> Having found the following Draft Policy to be fully developed and
> meeting ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy, the AC
> recommended it for adoption (to be posted separately for discussion as a
> Recommended Draft Policy):
>
>Draft Policy ARIN-2015-11: Remove transfer language which only
> applied pre-exhaustion of IPv4 pool
>
> The AC abandoned the following:
>
>Draft Policy ARIN-2015-8: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users
>
> The AC provided the following statement, "The ARIN AC has voted to
> abandon draft proposal ARIN-2015-8. Although a number of participants at
> ARIN 36 and on the PPML indicated support for investigation of greater
> harmonization of the services provided by ARIN to ISPs and End-Users,
> this specific proposal had no substantial community
> support. In fact, those who addressed themselves to the specific
> proposal, rather than broader issue of fees charged to ISPs vs.
> End-users or the types of services that ARIN should provide to each
> class of clients, did not support the specific proposal itself. Based on
> community feedback, we would suggest the broader issues be considered by
> ARIN, as part of a review of services."
>
> The AC is continuing to work on:
>
>Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to
> Specified Recipients)
>Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in
> end-user IPv4 policy
>Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use
>Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks
>Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated
> need for IPv4 transfers
>Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for
> Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks
>
> The AC abandoned 2015-8. Anyone dissatisfied with this decision may
> initiate a petition. The deadline to begin a petition will be five
> business days after the AC's draft meeting minutes are published. For
> more information on starting and participating in petitions, see PDP
> Petitions at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_petitions.html
>
> Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
>
> The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>
> Regards,
>
> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 14:26:08 -0500
> From: ARIN 
> To: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-11: Remove
> transfer language which only 

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-6

[Rudolph Daniel]

"In fact, I believe that eliminating needs-basis will likely cause actual
utilization to be reduced in the
long run in favor of financial manipulationOwen"

Until Proven otherwise, I am inclined to support Owen's view on this. I
think adoption of 2015-6 is likely to legitimize the monetization of ip
addresses, leading to a complex market structure dominated by certain
sections of the business community, whilst possibly delaying the adoption
of Ipv6 and slowing innovation.

The main artery of purpose seems to hang on the need to maintain an
accurate whois, driving RIR s to refocus purely on registration...this
sounds like a free for all, and so far I am not convinced that that is in
the interest of the community as a whole, and may result in the IP wars.

"1. has been an ARIN customer for at least 36 months; AND
2. is currently in good standing with ARIN; AND
3. is currently using IPv4 or IPv6 addresses in the ARIN region; AND
4. can demonstrate it has a meaningful business that operates in the ARIN
region."

Not sure what a "meaningful business" is.

The staff has also indicated some technical issues and cost implications.
Is the proposer seriously suggesting that the increased registrations and
what may be a ghostly expectation of an even more accurate whois will more
than cover the increased cost of implementing 2015-6?
What does the proposer believe is most likely to happen in the short to
medium term were this draft policy not be supported by the community and
what would be the likely impact on ARIN operations, staff, technical,
legal; of what the proposer is trying to avoid?

There maybe a need to do something, but, my thoughts lean towards a global
policy, across all RIRs.

RD

On Sep 24, 2015 3:10 PM,  wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
> arin-ppml@arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national
>   Networks - revised (ARIN)
>2. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based
>   evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4
>   netblocks (Leif Sawyer)
>3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based
>   evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4
>   netblocks (Owen DeLong)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 17:12:13 -0400
> From: ARIN 
> To: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and
> Multi-national Networks - revised
> Message-ID: <560315ad.5000...@arin.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> On 1 September 2015 the ARIN Advisory Council revised 2015-6. Below you
> will find the the updated ARIN staff assessment.
>
> ARIN-2015-5 is below and can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_5.html
>
> Regards,
>
> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
> ## * ##
>
>
> ARIN STAFF & LEGAL ASSESSMENT
> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6
> TRANSFERS AND MULTI-NATIONAL NETWORKS
>
> Date of Assessment: 15 September 2015
>
> ___
> 1. Summary (Staff Understanding)
>
> This proposal states that when evaluating transfer requests, ARIN will
> not consider the geographic location where an organization is utilizing,
> or will utilize, its ARIN-registered addresses if that organization, its
> parent, or a subsidiary are able to satisfy each of the four stated
> criteria.
>
> ___
> 2. Comments
>
> A. ARIN Staff Comments
>
> ? During the course of a transfer request, staff will consider and
> review the utilization of any block issued by ARIN to that organization,
> regardless of whether that address space is being used outside of the
> ARIN region.
> ? This policy enables organizations to qualify as a recipient for 8.3 or
> 8.4 transfers in the ARIN region when they might not have otherwise been
> able to do so. ARIN staff would now be able to consider their global
> utilization, instead of only their in-ARIN region use.
> ? One of the elements ARIN staff uses to determine 24-month need for an
> organization is their historical utilization rate. This proposal allows
> organizations to justify a larger 24-month needs based qualification,
> because staff will consider their utilization globally instead of just
> what was used inside the ARIN region.
> ? This would be placed in a new section of the NRPM called "8.5
> Additional Transfer Policies".
> ? This policy could be implemented as written.
>
> 

Re: [arin-ppml] 2015-8

[Rudolph Daniel]

This policy proposal stretches across responsibilities areas as it impacts
 number policy, ARIN operational practice, and fees.

What would the result of orgs. being allowed to create re assignment
records, yet failing to do so? Or, what would be their motivation to
maintain an acceptible level of accuracy?
RD
On Aug 26, 2015 1:19 PM, arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net wrote:

 Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
 arin-ppml@arin.net

 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
 http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
 or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
 arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net

 You can reach the person managing the list at
 arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net

 When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
 than Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest...


 Today's Topics:

1. Re: Thoughts on 2015-7 (Mike Burns)
2. Re: ARIN-PPML 2015-7 (John Santos)
3. Re: Thoughts on 2015-7 (Brett Frankenberger)
4. Re: Thoughts on 2015-7 (Gary T. Giesen)
5. Advisory Council Meeting Results - August 2015 (ARIN)
6. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-8: Reassignment records for IPv4
   End-Users (ARIN)
7. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-8: Reassignment records forIPv4
   End-Users (Gary T. Giesen)


 --

 Message: 1
 Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:45:19 -0400
 From: Mike Burns m...@iptrading.com
 To: Scott Leibrand scottleibr...@gmail.com, William Herrin
 b...@herrin.us
 Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net p...@arin.net
 Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7
 Message-ID: xwu2pti3ccbtb0e2vu0cpahe.1440175519...@email.android.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

 I support the proposal.

 Regards,
 Mike Burns


 Sent from my Sprint phone

 div Original message /divdivFrom: Scott Leibrand 
 scottleibr...@gmail.com /divdivDate:08/21/2015  11:14 AM
 (GMT-05:00) /divdivTo: William Herrin b...@herrin.us /divdivCc:
 arin-ppml@arin.net p...@arin.net /divdivSubject: Re: [arin-ppml]
 Thoughts on 2015-7 /divdiv
 /div
  On Aug 20, 2015, at 1:30 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
 
  On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Rob Seastrom rs-li...@seastrom.com
 wrote:
  8.1.x Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers
 
  IPv4 transfer recipients must demonstrate (and an officer of the
  requesting organization must attest) that they will use at least 50% of
  their aggregate IPv4 addresses (including the requested resources) on an
  operational network within 24 months.
 
  Howdy,
 
  Still against it because it still applies to out-region transfers
  where ARIN no longer has access to it and CAN NOT revoke it for fraud
  when the attestation turns out to be untrue.

 Actually, it does not apply to the recipients of out-of-region transfers.
 NRPM 8.4 states that The conditions on a recipient outside of the ARIN
 region will be defined by the policies of the receiving RIR.

 This proposed language would only apply to 8.3 and 8.4 transfer recipients
 in the ARIN region.

 -Scott
 ___
 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:
 http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
 Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

 -- next part --
 An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
 URL: 
 http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150821/9cbc2324/attachment-0001.html
 

 --

 Message: 2
 Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 15:21:31 -0400
 From: John Santos j...@egh.com
 To: Rudolph Daniel rudi.dan...@gmail.com
 Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
 Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-7
 Message-ID: 1150821152043.15636d-100...@joonya.egh.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

 Opposed, based on reasons expressed by Rudi and Owen.

 --
 John Santos
 Evans Griffiths  Hart, Inc.
 781-861-0670 ext 539

 --

 Message: 3
 Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 17:52:35 -0500
 From: Brett Frankenberger rbf+arin-p...@panix.com
 To: arin-ppml@arin.net
 Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7
 Message-ID: 20150823225235.ga28...@panix.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

 On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 06:14:59PM -0700, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
  On 8/20/2015 1:04 PM, Brian Jones wrote:
  
  ?I agree with this simplified requirement but would even be willing to
  accept a 50% within 12 months and 75% in 24 months requirement. Two
 years
  is a long time to tie up valuable resources that are not being used.
 IMHO?
 
  I do not understand this reasoning. There is no more free pool. If Org A
 is
  not using valuable resources and they are transferred to Org B who was
  mistaken about how fast they will use them, then Org B is also not using
  valuable resources. But if instead Org

Re: [arin-ppml] 2015-2

[Rudolph Daniel]

It seems there are these legal rights that exist outside the ARIN
registry system, in particular legacy legal rights which remain untested in
court.

JohnIf that?s the case, then excellent - I look forward to seeing these
promptly
adjudicated as a result of a party making an appropriate claim to that
end.

I am really thankful for this discussion thread, as it revisits Microsoft
and Nortel and legacy (rights)(?)

It only occurs to me now that it may well be in the interest of the
community that a legacy allocation party (not Arin) make such a claim in
court :) to legal rights.
RD
On Jun 3, 2015 4:19 PM, arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net wrote:

 Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
 arin-ppml@arin.net

 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
 http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
 or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
 arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net

 You can reach the person managing the list at
 arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net

 When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
 than Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest...


 Today's Topics:

1. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)
   (William Herrin)
2. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)
   (Mike Burns)
3. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)
   (John Curran)
4. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)
   (William Herrin)
5. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)
   (John Curran)


 --

 Message: 1
 Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 15:44:37 -0400
 From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us
 To: Mike Burns m...@iptrading.com
 Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net arin-ppml@arin.net
 Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML
 2015-2)
 Message-ID:
 CAP-guGWWo=
 suh8kpb4+yxkn9oiecsykhw9g70ucpory2-ah...@mail.gmail.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

 On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Mike Burns m...@iptrading.com wrote:
  You could have made a motion for standing with the judge and argued that
  Nortel did not have the right to transfer without your approval, and in
 that
  case you may have had the decision you say you want. Instead you
 negotiated
  with Microsoft to accept changes to the proposed sale agreement which
  provide the fig leaf of cover for ARIN to claim that this was an
 in-policy
  transfer.

 Exactly.

 Regards,
 Bill Herrin



 --
 William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
 Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/


 --

 Message: 2
 Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 16:05:02 -0400
 From: Mike Burns m...@iptrading.com
 To: 'John Curran' jcur...@arin.net
 Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
 Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML
 2015-2)
 Message-ID: 011201d09e38$93a1b530$bae51f90$@iptrading.com
 Content-Type: text/plain;   charset=utf-8

 Hi John,

 The point remains. You could have argued that no transfer could happen
 without ARIN approval.
 But you didn't, instead you had negotiated language added to the sales
 order which was legally passive and basically dealt with buyer recitals.
 Why would Nortel object? They got their money.
 Why would Microsoft object? They got their addresses.

 But why would ARIN twist itself in knots instead of staking their legal
 claim at that point?

 Still no word on the queer justification coincidence? Remember that the
 addresses were still in use by Nortel at the time of sale and 198,000 of
 them wouldn't be available until various times in the future, not to go
 past January 31st, 2012?

 How can you stand by that justification, especially since Microsoft didn't
 even advertise the majority of the purchased addresses for a year
 afterwards?

 This is what we mean by evidence that ARIN does not truly seek a legal
 precedent be set on this matter.

 And this begs the question of your assertion that ARIN provides the
 rights to the address blocks in your conversation with David Conrad.
 If that were the case, why does ARIN kowtow to legal requirements (a la
 the L/RSA for Microsoft and other changes you make to comport with
 bankruptcy requirements) instead of telling the judge to stuff it because
 ARIN policy defines address holder rights and registry will only be changed
 by policy?

 It seems there are these legal rights that exist outside the ARIN registry
 system, in particular legacy legal rights which remain untested in court.

 Regards,
 Mike

 -Original Message-
 From: John Curran [mailto:jcur...@arin.net]
 Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 3:34 PM
 To: Mike Burns
 Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
 Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML
 2015-2)

 On Jun 3, 2015, at 3:02 PM, Mike Burns m...@iptrading.com wrote:
  My recollection is not off and my statement stands. The judge, after

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 120, Issue 26

[Rudolph Daniel]

sometimes wonder if it would be worthwhile to set
up a legacy registry to maintain all the old out-of-contract address
registrations. Bill Herrin

Out-of-the-box thinking for out-of- contract addresses:)
Would that mean that ARIN would be able to request return of all resources
previously allocated to legacy registry  inhabitants?
(silly question)

I'd be interested to know how accurate is our general knowledge of legacy
resources..I guess previous someones would have listed allocations but
chairs and tables do get re-arranged over the years.
RD
On Jun 3, 2015 8:32 PM, arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net wrote:

 Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
 arin-ppml@arin.net

 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
 http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
 or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
 arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net

 You can reach the person managing the list at
 arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net

 When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
 than Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest...


 Today's Topics:

1. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)
   (Seth Johnson)
2. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)
   (William Herrin)
3. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)
   (William Herrin)
4. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (William Herrin)
5. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)
   (Seth Johnson)
6. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (John Curran)


 --

 Message: 1
 Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 19:00:17 -0400
 From: Seth Johnson seth.p.john...@gmail.com
 To: William Herrin b...@herrin.us
 Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net List arin-ppml@arin.net
 Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML
 2015-2)
 Message-ID:
 CAJkfFBz1yZjxV0a2Cs5bvCcZHfsb+RJ-qcT=
 n9g10crjlob...@mail.gmail.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

 On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Seth Johnson seth.p.john...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  I don't think you'll find very much in the way of common law rights to
  information as such.  It kinda has to be a statute to start with --
  and statutes giving property in information aren't really something
  that happens much, except in the areas you mention -- which were
  accorded to Congress to grant.

 (and I am not one to call these rights property, specifically
 because so much confusion has been wrought about information as a
 result of the notion that statutory exclusive rights such as copyright
 are intellectual property.  You only find the term intellectual
 property advocated in France, before about 1980.  They're exclusive
 rights.  There are a few of those things that have been accorded to
 authors.  :-)  )



 
  On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:38 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
  On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Seth Johnson seth.p.john...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  If it's copyright, the judge won't do that.  There's no such thing as
  an exclusive right to use in copyright.
 
  Hi Seth,
 
  IP addresses are definitely not copyrights. Or trademarks, patents or
  trade secrets. So far as I know, they're not any kind of
  *intellectual* property whose existence derives from statute and, in
  the U.S., from the Constitution itself.
 
  I suspect they're Common Law *Intangible* Property which is something
  else entirely. At least they are in common law jurisdictions which
  includes all of the U.S. and Canada and if I'm not mistaken everywhere
  else in the ARIN region as well.
 
  Much of Europe operates on Roman Civil Law rather than English Common
  Law. The legal foundations over there are so different I couldn't
  begin to speculate how IP addresses fit.
 
  Regards,
  Bill Herrin
 
 
  --
  William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
  Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/


 --

 Message: 2
 Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 19:29:48 -0400
 From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us
 To: Seth Johnson seth.p.john...@gmail.com
 Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net List arin-ppml@arin.net
 Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML
 2015-2)
 Message-ID:
 CAP-guGWQppgai1ob_Ur0XW8uLNrT6OdqLuxjf30r-C=
 mfqa...@mail.gmail.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

 On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Seth Johnson seth.p.john...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  I don't think you'll find very much in the way of common law rights to
  information as such.  It kinda has to be a statute to start with --
  and statutes giving property in information aren't really something
  that happens much, except in the areas you mention -- which were
  accorded to Congress to grant.

 Hi Seth,

 Common Law Intangible Property is so firmly embedded in your everyday
 activities, you probably don't even know its there.

 Take a bank check, for example. You hold a 

[arin-ppml] RFC 7020: for my own benefit.

[Rudolph Daniel]

RFC ---Goals Internet number resources are currently distributed according
to the following (non-exclusive) goals:

1) Allocation Pool Management: Due to the fixed lengths of IP addresses and
AS numbers, the pools from which these resources are allocated are finite.
As such, allocations must be made in accordance with the operational needs
of those running the networks that make use of these number resources and
by taking into consideration pool limitations at the time of allocation.

2) Hierarchical Allocation: Given current routing technology, the
distribution of IP addresses in a hierarchical manner increases the
likelihood of continued scaling of the Internet's routing system. As such,
it is currently a goal to allocate IP addresses in such a way that permits
aggregation of these addresses into a minimum number of routing
announcements. However, whether IP addresses are actually announced to the
Internet and the manner of their advertisement into the Internet's routing
system are operational considerations outside the scope of the Internet
Numbers Registry System.

3) Registration Accuracy: A core requirement of the Internet Numbers
Registry System is to maintain a registry of allocations to ensure
uniqueness and to provide accurate registration information of those
allocations in order to meet a variety of operational requirements.
Uniqueness ensures that IP addresses and AS numbers are not allocated to
more than one party at the same time. These goals may sometimes conflict
with each other or with the interests of individual end users, Internet
service providers, or other number resource consumers.

Careful analysis, judgment, and cooperation among registry system providers
and consumers at all levels via community-developed policies are necessary
to find appropriate compromises to facilitate Internet operations.
___
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:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

Re: [arin-ppml] 2015-2

[Rudolph Daniel]

The large multinational actor has the option of buying space in the ARIN
market and moving it ARIN-APNIC-CNNIC.

The small operator in China has trouble competing with the large
multinational actor because the small actor has no such option for
obtaining IPv4 addresses.

If the above is s fair example of current situation, it seems unfair or did
advantageous to a smaller operator.

So would a set of anti flip words with an allocation size operator work? Or
would there be fear of broadening the flip market ?

Or I can ask, at what size of allocation does antiflip rules begin to be
necessary?
RD
On May 27, 2015 8:17 AM, arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net wrote:

 Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
 arin-ppml@arin.net

 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
 http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
 or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
 arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net

 You can reach the person managing the list at
 arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net

 When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
 than Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest...


 Today's Topics:

1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers
   to Specified Recipients) (Seth Mattinen)
2. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR   Transfers
   to Specified Recipients) (Adam Thompson)
3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers
   to Specified Recipients) (John Curran)
4. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR   Transfers
   to Specified Recipients) (Owen DeLong)
5. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR   Transfers
   to Specified Recipients) (Owen DeLong)
6. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR   Transfers
   to Specified Recipients) (Owen DeLong)


 --

 Message: 1
 Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 16:23:16 -0700
 From: Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us
 To: arin-ppml@arin.net
 Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4
 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients)
 Message-ID: 55650064.6090...@rollernet.us
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed

 On 5/26/15 16:14, David Huberman wrote:
  Bill,
 
  I don't understand your position.
 
  There's no free pool. All space comes from the market.
 
  A small actor pays money to get her necessary space from the market.
  A large actor pays money to get her necessary space from the market.
 
  How does the large actor moving space they hold from ARIN to CNNIC
 disadvantage the small actor?
 


 ARIN still appears to have IPv4 inventory to fulfill requests that I
 think of when I think small actor, like /24's and /23's. The size that
 probably can't match what a company like Microsoft can pay for IP space.
 What do you consider small?

 ~Seth


 --

 Message: 2
 Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 18:57:53 -0500
 From: Adam Thompson athom...@athompso.net
 To: arin-ppml@arin.net
 Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4
 (Inter-RIR  Transfers to Specified Recipients)
 Message-ID: 37b252d8-ff4c-4c3c-b916-d63bfe1a2...@athompso.net
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

 Unless I've missed something, the change in question only affects
 purchased or transferred blocks, not blocks coming from inventory.
 As far as I know, big and small players already pay the same price in the
 transfer market.
 The existing policies only seem to affect large corporations in the first
 place, so don't disadvantage the small org AFAICT.  Considering I'm always
 complaining about vsmall orgs being ignored, I'd like to see a situation
 where this change negatively images them, if I've missed it.
 (Apologies for top-posting from mobile..)
 -Adam

 On May 26, 2015 6:23:16 PM CDT, Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us wrote:
 On 5/26/15 16:14, David Huberman wrote:
  Bill,
 
  I don't understand your position.
 
  There's no free pool. All space comes from the market.
 
  A small actor pays money to get her necessary space from the market.
  A large actor pays money to get her necessary space from the market.
 
  How does the large actor moving space they hold from ARIN to CNNIC
 disadvantage the small actor?
 
 
 
 ARIN still appears to have IPv4 inventory to fulfill requests that I
 think of when I think small actor, like /24's and /23's. The size
 that
 probably can't match what a company like Microsoft can pay for IP
 space.
 What do you consider small?
 
 ~Seth
 ___
 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:
 http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
 Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

 --
 Sent from my Android device 

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN- 2014-21

[Rudolph Daniel]

I support this policy as AC recommends.
RD
On May 1, 2015 6:01 PM, arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net wrote:

 Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
 arin-ppml@arin.net

 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
 http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
 or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
 arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net

 You can reach the person managing the list at
 arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net

 When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
 than Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest...


 Today's Topics:

1. LAST CALL: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21:
   Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 (ARIN)
2. Re: LAST CALL: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-6: Remove
   Operational Reverse DNS Text (Michael Peddemors)
3. Re: LAST CALL: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21:
   Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 (ARIN)
4. Weekly posting summary for p...@arin.net (Thomas Narten)
5. Re: Advisory Council Meeting Results - April 2015 (ARIN)


 --

 Message: 1
 Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 12:06:10 -0400
 From: ARIN i...@arin.net
 To: arin-ppml@arin.net
 Subject: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21:
 Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4
 Message-ID: 553e5e72.6060...@arin.net
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed

 The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 15 April 2015 and decided to
 send the following to last call:

Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size
 per Section 4.4

 Feedback is encouraged during the last call period. All comments should
 be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. This last call will
 expire on 11 May 2015. After last call the AC will conduct their
 last call review.

 The draft policy text is below and available at:
 https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/

 The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at:
 https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html

 Regards,

 Communications and Member Services
 American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


 ## * ##


 Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21
 Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4

 Date: 25 November 2014

 AC's assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number
 Resource Policy:

 This proposal enables fair and impartial number resource administration
 by ensuring IPv4 resources are available for critical infrastructure and
 Internet Exchanges in particular after IPv4 resources are no longer
 readily available from the ARIN free pool. This benefits more than just
 the individual organizations receiving these resources; it benefits the
 entire Internet Community by contributing to the stability and
 scalability of the Internet as a whole. This proposal is technically
 sound and is supported by the community.

 Problem Statement:

 At the time that this section of policy was written, IXP growth in North
 America was stagnant. Efforts of late have increased significantly
 within the IXP standards and other communities to improve critical
 infrastructure in North America. This effort is paying dividends and we
 project that a /16 will not be enough to continue to improve global
 interconnect conditions and support needed IXP CI infrastructure.

 Policy statement:

 Change to text in section 4.4 Micro Allocations:

 Current text:

 ARIN will place an equivalent of a /16 of IPv4 address space in a
 reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. If at
 the end of the policy term there is unused address space remaining in
 this pool, ARIN staff is authorized to utilize this space in a manner
 consistent with community expectations.

 Proposed text to replace current text entirely:

 ARIN will place an equivalent of a /15 of IPv4 address space in a
 reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4.

 Timetable for implementation: Immediate

 #

 ARIN STAFF ASSESSMENT

 Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4
 Date of Assessment: 14 January 2015

 1. Summary (Staff Understanding)

 This policy changes one section of existing NRPM policy 4.4 to extend
 the current reservation size for critical infrastructure and exchange
 points from a /16 equivalent to a /15 equivalent.


 2. Comments

 A. ARIN Staff Comments

 ??? For informational purposes:
 ??? A total of 35 /24s have been issued from the reserved /16 equivalent
 for CI and IXPs since the policy was amended and implemented on 20 March
 2013, leaving 221 /24s available in this reserved block.

 ??? There are currently 381 free /24s remaining in the two /8 ranges
 used for CI and IXP micro-allocations.

 ??? This policy could be implemented as written.


 B. ARIN General Counsel - Legal Assessment

 This proposal does not create any material legal issue.

 3. Resource Impact

 This policy would have minimal resource 

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 118, Issue 19

[Rudolph Daniel]

Jimmy I would have to +1 David here; wholeheartedly Sir.
RD
On Apr 15, 2015 12:23 PM, arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net wrote:

 Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
 arin-ppml@arin.net

 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
 http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
 or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
 arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net

 You can reach the person managing the list at
 arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net

 When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
 than Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest...


 Today's Topics:

1. Re: Equality in address space assignment (David Huberman)
2. Re: Policy idea: POC Validation (David Huberman)
3. Re: Policy idea: POC Validation (Ted Mittelstaedt)


 --

 Message: 1
 Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 16:00:54 +
 From: David Huberman david.huber...@microsoft.com
 To: Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com
 Cc: ARIN PPML \(p...@arin.net\) p...@arin.net
 Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Equality in address space assignment
 Message-ID:
 
 dm2pr03mb398cf9a4e3d8ddc11b511ed9b...@dm2pr03mb398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com
 

 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

 Jimmy,

 Thank you for the well thought out counter argument.  I agree with a lot
 of what you say.  You've outlined what I think is the primary thinking
 behind conservation-based allocation practices that ARIN policy has been
 based on for 18 years now.

 The problem I think I have is the results of those practices.
 1) Lock-in by large providers
 2) Conservation itself is a red herring, and has been for more than a
 decade.  80-90% of the addresses go to 10 companies.  That leaves tens of
 thousands of networks using just 10-20% of the addresses.  This math has
 been shown many times on PPML in the past.

 Routing table growth is no longer mathematically valid, in my opinion.  We
 are just under 600,000 routes.   There are only 40,000 ASes or so (right?)
 in a typical DFZ.  Even a doubling of that would have no discernable effect
 on routing.  If youre running a catalyst 5xxx, it's time to upgrade.

 Finally, I respect the RIPE and APNIC model of addressing:  everyone plays
 on a level field to start with.  You get a block, and try and grow your
 business/network.  At ARIN, this you must be THIS tall inherently favors
 the large ISPs and cablecos who dominate ARIN policy making (and have since
 the beginning), which results in lock-in, etc etc.

 Just my opinion.  My original post was made in frustration when large ISPs
 got to the mic at ARIN35 decrying that removing needs-basis for small
 transfers was unfair.  Such hypocrisy (especially from those who already
 bought a /8!!!) is a sore topic for me. I will continue to fight for the
 little guy, borne of my 10 years working with them every day at ARIN.  The
 big guys don't need the help.

 Thanks for listening,
 David

 David R Huberman
 Principal, Global IP Addressing
 Microsoft Corporation

  -Original Message-
  From: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysi...@gmail.com]
  Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 4:24 PM
  To: David Huberman
  Cc: ARIN PPML (p...@arin.net)
  Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Equality in address space assignment
 
  On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 4:34 PM, David Huberman
  david.huber...@microsoft.com wrote:
 
   How is RIPE and APNIC?s policy unfair, but ARIN?s policy of ?you must
   be THIS large a network to participate? fair?
   What is the technical basis for not allowing small networks to get PI
 space?
 
  It's unfair, because non first time requestors have to hold resources,
 And
  they have to show efficient utilization of existing resources.
 
  All first time requestors can get a /24   is essentially saying
 
  We don't care if you waste 253  IP addresses, because your network
 design
  only required a /29.
 
 
  Doesn't require a technical basis.   It is undesirable for any
  networks to have PI
  space,  as it grows the routing tables, but
 
  This is a good non-technical resource management choice.  It makes sense
 to
  require small networks with no direct allocation yet to meet criteria to
 show
  that they have reached a size milestone of proven business and  growth
  projections with
  sufficient confidence to show that  the allocation of a /24   is needed,
  and absolutely necessary  to meet  short term or immediate  needs.
 
  Consider that there are many more small networks than large ones.
  There are many very small networks which might  have a proven case for
  10 IP addresses and a claim to need 200  soon.
 
  It makes no sense that they can get a /24 for ARIN, and then stop
 growing,
  and hold onto
  that entire /24 forever;As long as the  small organization exists,
   the allocation of the /24
  is an irrevocable choice,   with no incentive for the small org.  to
 renumber
  back to PA space and release unnecessary resources.
 
  On the other hand,  if the small  org 

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2014-21

[Rudolph Daniel]

Thinking, .since 2014-21 deals with critical infrastructure, and we are
at the ipv4 runout stage that we are at, is it not expeditious for Arin  to
reserve the new requirement pursuant to the process of  implementation in
the light of little or no expected challenge to the proposal?

RD
On Jan 9, 2015 2:01 PM, arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net wrote:

Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
arin-ppml@arin.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest...


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI PoolSize
  per Section 4.4 (John Curran)
   2. Weekly posting summary for p...@arin.net (Thomas Narten)
   3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size
  per Section 4.4 (Leo Vegoda)
   4. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI PoolSize
  per Section 4.4 (Owen DeLong)
   5. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size
  per Section 4.4 (John Curran)
   6. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI PoolSize
  per Section 4.4 (John Curran)


--

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 04:51:22 +
From: John Curran jcur...@arin.net
To: Martin J Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI
PoolSize per Section 4.4
Message-ID: e9bca40e-08da-4ea2-8c3e-d577df35b...@corp.arin.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Dec 25, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com wrote:
 I'll point this list at a public viewable URL to a proper thread there.
Not sure why people need to actually subscribe, either way. I also can't
force (and won't advocate) people to waste their time like that on either
list.

 There are AC members there. They too can report their observations back
to the Politburo. I'm sure you'll be well informed.

Martin -

Insights are welcome from any source, and particularly from those who
have operational experience germane to the number resource policy
under consideration.  If the only goal is having these insights considered
during discussion, then having yourself or an AC member bring those
points they feel relevant to the PPML discussion should suffice.

As I have noted earlier, to the extent that OIX participants wish their
support to be included in the discussion summary counts, that will
require them to actually participate in the discussion on the Public
Policy Mailing List (as per the ARIN Policy Development Process.)

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



--

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 00:53:02 -0500
From: Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for p...@arin.net
Message-ID: 201501090553.t095r2xy006...@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Total of 9 messages in the last 7 days.

script run at: Fri Jan  9 00:53:02 EST 2015

Messages   |  Bytes| Who
+--++--+
 11.11% |1 | 34.39% |64279 | o...@delong.com
 11.11% |1 | 24.43% |45655 | rudi.dan...@gmail.com
 22.22% |2 |  6.76% |12639 | jcur...@arin.net
 11.11% |1 | 11.69% |21854 | scottleibr...@gmail.com
 11.11% |1 |  6.83% |12756 | far...@umn.edu
 11.11% |1 |  6.74% |12601 | heather.ska...@gmail.com
 11.11% |1 |  5.31% | 9926 | ronald.dasi...@twcable.com
 11.11% |1 |  3.85% | 7190 | nar...@us.ibm.com
+--++--+
100.00% |9 |100.00% |   186900 | Total



--

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 16:27:17 +
From: Leo Vegoda leo.veg...@icann.org
To: Scott Leibrand scottleibr...@gmail.com, David Farmer
far...@umn.edu
Cc: ARIN-PPML List arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI
Pool Size per Section 4.4
Message-ID:
5daefc653f57495b80f3c616a621d...@pmbx112-w1-ca-1.pexch112.icann.org

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

Hi Scott,

Scott Leibrand wrote:

 How much is ARIN going to get from the next round of IANA returned space
 distribution?  It's more than a /16, isn't it?

If the pool does not change, which could happen if additional space was
returned to it, or if additional IETF assignments are made, each RIR should
receive a /13. The software used to make the allocations is freely available
from github.com/icann.

Kind regards,

Leo Vegoda
-- next part --
A 

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2014-19

[Rudolph Daniel]

I support this policy.

Rudi Daniel
ICT consulting
On Dec 24, 2014 1:24 PM, arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net wrote:

 Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
 arin-ppml@arin.net

 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
 http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
 or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
 arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net

 You can reach the person managing the list at
 arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net

 When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
 than Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest...


 Today's Topics:

1. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-19: New MDN Allocation
   Based on Past Utilization (ARIN)
2. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of Region   Use
   (William Herrin)
3. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change Utilization
   Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate (William Herrin)
4. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of Region   Use
   (Martin Hannigan)
5. Re: 2014-14, was Internet Fairness (Randy Carpenter)
6. Re: 2014-14, was Internet Fairness (Seth Mattinen)
7. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of Region Use
   (Andrew Dul)


 --

 Message: 1
 Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 11:21:48 -0500
 From: ARIN i...@arin.net
 To: arin-ppml@arin.net
 Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-19: New MDN
 Allocation Based on Past Utilization
 Message-ID: 549ae81c.3000...@arin.net
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed

 Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-19
 New MDN Allocation Based on Past Utilization

 On 18 December 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) recommended
 ARIN-2014-19 for adoption, making it a Recommended Draft Policy.

 ARIN-2014-19 is below and can be found at:
 https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_19.html

 You are encouraged to discuss Draft Policy 2014-19 on the PPML prior to
 the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Consultation at NANOG 63 in San Antonio
 in February 2015. Both the discussion on the list and at the meeting
 will be used by the ARIN Advisory Council to determine the community
 consensus for adopting this as policy.

 The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
 https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html

 Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
 https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html

 Regards,

 Communications and Member Services
 American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


 ## * ##


 Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-19
 New MDN Allocation Based on Past Utilization

 Date: 16 December 2014

 AC's assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number
 Resource Policy:

 This draft policy enables fair and impartial number resource
 administration by removing an impediment to additional allocations seen
 by some organizations due to the recent policy changes under
 ARIN-2013-08. This draft policy applies equally to all organizations and
 allows for MDN organizations to use previous utilization of a site to
 justify a new allocation for an MDN network site. The policy is clear
 and implementable as written. This proposal is technically sound. There
 are no technical issues which are raised by allowing a new criteria set
 to justify a new MDN network allocation. This proposal is supported by
 the community. Specifically, the draft policy is supported by
 organizations which use the MDN policy for their network allocation.

 Problem Statement:
 The previous MDN policy was too limiting in that a new MDN could only
 qualify under immediate need. This was extended by ARIN-2013-8 where the
 minimum allocation will now be assigned unless immediate need for more
 can be demonstrated.

 Unfortunately, this policy did not go far enough. There may be some
 cases where there is a one year utilization history that is applicable
 to a new MDN. For example, imagine a network that is divided into four
 regions, each an MDN. Three of the four MDNs have been growing at a /20
 per year. The fourth MDN has been growing at a /19 per year, it is over
 80% utilized, and the region is too large. The region will be divided in
 half, which half of the current customers and their addresses to be
 migrated into a new MDN (Region 5). It is also anticipated that half of
 Region 4's growth will be shifted to Region 5. With Region 4 and Region
 5 each above 80%, both should qualify for subsequent allocations at half
 of what was Region 4's growth rate.

 Policy statement:

 replace section 4.5.4 created by 2013-8:

 Upon verification that the organization has shown evidence of deployment
 of the new discrete network site, the new network(s) shall be allocated
 the minimum allocation size under section 4.2.1.5 unless the
 organization can demonstrate additional need using the immediate need
 criteria (4.2.1.6).

 with:

 Upon verification that the 

Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-21

[Rudolph Daniel]

In support of 2014-21...Yes, and more ixp s on the horizon, the countries
in Caribbean region within Arin are also still in the creation stage of
suitable CI.

Rudi Daniel
ICT consulting  lighting products
784 430 9235
On Dec 2, 2014 1:44 PM, arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net wrote:

 Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
 arin-ppml@arin.net

 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
 http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
 or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
 arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net

 You can reach the person managing the list at
 arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net

 When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
 than Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest...


 Today's Topics:

1. Re: 2014:21.CI pool size (Karl Brumund)


 --

 Message: 1
 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 12:42:58 -0500
 From: Karl Brumund kbrum...@dyn.com
 To: arin-ppml@arin.net arin-ppml@arin.net
 Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014:21.CI pool size
 Message-ID: 97fefafd-4069-4174-907b-1ef719af6...@dyn.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

 As the Internet continues to grow, the amount of critical infrastructure
 within the Internet also continues to grow. While the ARIN region is more
 mature than other regions, we are still seeing this growth increase.
 For these reasons, we support increasing the CI pool size.


 ?karl

 Principal Engineer
 Dyn


  On Dec 2, 2014, at 10:57 AM, Steven Ryerse srye...@eclipse-networks.com
 wrote:
 
  I support this as well.
 
  Steven Ryerse
  President
  100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
  770.656.1460 - Cell
  770.399.9099- Office
 
  image001.jpg? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
  Conquering Complex Networks?
 
  From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On
 Behalf Of Rudolph Daniel
  Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 7:03 AM
  To: arin-ppml@arin.net
  Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014:21.CI pool size
 
  I Support this CI pool size increase.
 
  Rudi Daniel
  784 430 9235
 
  On Dec 1, 2014 8:09 PM, arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net mailto:
 arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net wrote:
  Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
  arin-ppml@arin.net mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net
 
  To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
  http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml 
 http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
  or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
  arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net mailto:arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
 
  You can reach the person managing the list at
  arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net mailto:arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
 
  When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
  than Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest...
 
 
  Today's Topics:
 
 1. Advisory Council Meeting Results - November 2014 (ARIN)
 2. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per
Section 4.4 (ARIN)
 3. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in  Section 4.10
(ARIN)
 4. Weekly posting summary for p...@arin.net mailto:p...@arin.net
 (Thomas Narten)
 5. Re: Multi-homing justification removed? (Owen DeLong)
 
 
  --
 
  Message: 1
  Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 15:34:58 -0500
  From: ARIN i...@arin.net mailto:i...@arin.net
  To: arin-ppml@arin.net mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net
  Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - November 2014
  Message-ID: 5474e7f2.60...@arin.net mailto:5474e7f2.60...@arin.net
  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk; format=flowed
 
  In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN
  Advisory Council (AC) met on 20 November 2014.
 
  The AC recommended the following to the ARIN Board for adoption:
 
 Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-9: Resolve Conflict Between RSA
  and 8.2 Utilization Requirements
 
  The AC accepted the following Proposals as a Draft Policies:
 
 ARIN-prop-213 Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4
 ARIN-prop-214 Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10
 
  The AC is continuing to work on the following:
 
 Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of Region Use
 Draft Policy ARIN-2014-6: Remove 7.1 [Maintaining IN-ADDRs]
 Draft Policy ARIN-2014-14: Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4
 Transfers
 Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change Utilization Requirements from
  last-allocation to total-aggregate
 Draft Policy ARIN-2014-19: New MDN Allocation Based on Past
 Utilization
 
  Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available at:
  https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html 
 https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
 
  The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
  https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html 
 https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
 
  Regards,
 
  Communications and Member Services
  American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN

Re: [arin-ppml] 2914-19

[Rudolph Daniel]

Agree with Huberman on this one...RIR s are never and hopefully will never
be about  controlling spam.if it ain't broken don't fix it.

Rudi Daniel
ICT consulting
784 430 9235
On Nov 11, 2014 8:44 AM, arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net wrote:

 Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
 arin-ppml@arin.net

 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
 http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
 or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
 arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net

 You can reach the person managing the list at
 arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net

 When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
 than Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest...


 Today's Topics:

1. Re: 2014-19 and evidence of deployment (David Huberman)
2. Re: 2014-19 and evidence of deployment (Jason Schiller)


 --

 Message: 1
 Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 12:11:45 +
 From: David Huberman david.huber...@microsoft.com
 To: Jason Schiller jschil...@google.com
 Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net arin-ppml@arin.net
 Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-19 and evidence of deployment
 Message-ID:
 
 b9f16d51e39048a298e57299ea51b...@dm2pr03mb398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com

 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

 J-

 What if paragraph 7 were struck entirely from existing 4.5 text? Wouldn't
 that leave the staff able to issue blocks to new MDNs under the same rules
 as everyone else in section 4, while at the same time removing the
 documentation requirement?

 Thinking out loud.

 David R Huberman
 Microsoft Corporation
 Principal, Global IP Addressing
 
 From: Jason Schiller jschil...@google.com
 Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 3:46:18 AM
 To: David Huberman
 Cc: Martin Hannigan; John Santos; arin-ppml@arin.net
 Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-19 and evidence of deployment

 While I appreciate this discussion, I believe there is a real need to
 change policy.

 Previously a new MDN could only qualify under and get an initial
 allocation sized block.

 This was extended to include more than the initial allocation sized block
 under immediate need.

 I believe there is another case (besides immediate need) where more than
 the initial allocation sized block is justified.  That is when there is a
 demonstrated past 1 year growth history that supports a future looking 3
 month growth of a new MDN.  Such is the case when an existing MDN is
 split.  Hence 2014-19.

 I don't want to get hung up on the proof of deployment text that already
 exists.

 Those of you that think this should be changed, please provide suitable
 text, and we can run the two policy proposals in parallel.

 If you think this is unnecessary tinkering, then I would expect we will
 not rat hole on the pre-existing proof of deployment text when discussion
 2014-19 as we did in the previous meeting.

 Thank you.


 __Jason


 On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:08 AM, David Huberman 
 david.huber...@microsoft.commailto:david.huber...@microsoft.com wrote:
 In my world view, policy should never assume the requestor is lying.  The
 same should hold true for ARIN staff.

 No one ever mandated ARIN with stopping the scammers.  I believe it was
 Rob Seastrom who posted here a long time ago and basically said that ARIN
 staff are entrusted to do the best job they can in running the registry,
 but the community shouldn't have expectations that ARIN staff can figure
 out who's lying and who's not.

 But because ARIN got burned by large-scale hijacking in the early 2000s,
 it has operated under trust but verify ever since.  And this fosters the
 antagonism towards the registry which I think is wholly avoidable.  Trust
 but verify is a bad way to run an RIR, in my experience.

 I hope we can focus on policy language which always assumes a request is
 bona fide, and let's stop worrying about the 1% of requestors who are
 lying.  That way, network engineers can spend less time dealing with ARIN,
 and more time running their networks.

 David R Huberman
 Microsoft Corporation
 Principal, Global IP Addressing

 -Original Message-
 From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.netmailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net
 [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.netmailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On
 Behalf Of Martin Hannigan
 Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 8:55 PM
 To: John Santos
 Cc: arin-ppml@arin.netmailto:arin-ppml@arin.net
 Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-19 and evidence of deployment

 On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 6:17 PM, John Santos j...@egh.commailto:
 j...@egh.com wrote:
  On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, Martin Hannigan wrote:
 
  
   7. Upon verification that the organization has shown evidence of
   deployment of the new discrete network site, [such as, but not
   limited to the
   following: a network design showing existing and new discreet
   networks and supporting documentation that the proposed design in
   in progress such as contracts for new space or 

Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-14

[Rudolph Daniel]

Re: David's

2014-14 would work nicely.
-get a free 8.3 transfer up to a /16
-anything more requires strict needs basis mechanism TBD
-throw in a clause that ARIN has the right to refuse if it believes the
free transfer is not being made in good faith because of speculation and
multiple OrgIDs..end quote.

+1 on the above ..from data offerings and knowledge gleamed so far.
But a free  /16...as opposed to a smaller one..??

RD
skype: rudidaniel
On Sep 24, 2014 9:49 AM, arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net wrote:

 Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
 arin-ppml@arin.net

 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
 http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
 or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
 arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net

 You can reach the person managing the list at
 arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net

 When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
 than Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest...


 Today's Topics:

1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer PolicySlowStart and
   Simplified Needs Verification (Matthew Kaufman)
2. Hoarding and speculation (was: Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20:
   Transfer Policy Slow  Start and Simplified Needs Verification)
   (John Curran)
3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer PolicySlowStart and
   Simplified Needs Verification (Mike Burns)
4. Re: ARIN-2014-20 and current future looking needs assessment
   (Martin Hannigan)
5. Re: Hoarding and speculation (was: Re: Draft Policy
   ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy SlowStart and Simplified Needs
   Verification) (David Huberman)


 --

 Message: 1
 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 19:50:53 -0700
 From: Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at
 To: David Huberman david.huber...@microsoft.com
 Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net List \(arin-ppml@arin.net\)
 arin-ppml@arin.net
 Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy
 SlowStart and Simplified Needs Verification
 Message-ID: de1f8ab3-4a29-4288-bad1-187aeae93...@matthew.at
 Content-Type: text/plain;   charset=us-ascii

 Speculators and hoarders could already be locking up space via contracts
 that aren't even transfers (yet)... And yet I haven't seen much of that
 going on either. In fact, offers to buy or lease (or any other contract
 regarding) space are coming in less often than a year ago, if anything.

 Matthew Kaufman

 (Sent from my iPhone)

  On Sep 23, 2014, at 7:45 PM, David Huberman 
 david.huber...@microsoft.com wrote:
 
  John wrote:
 
  A transfer policy mechanism which allows receipt up to a limit based on
  current holdings provides far more certainty for those who wish to plan
  for the future, as they can go to market knowing precisely that limit.
 
  What is the virtue of a limit?
 
  It's not the prevention of speculation and hoarding.  Those will always
  happen outside the view of ARIN policy.  Speculators and hoarders will
  buy blocks on the open market and simply not engage ARIN because
  there's no reason to.  Contract law makes it trivial to ignore ARIN.
 
  It's not conservation - there is no such thing as conservation in IPv4.
  85% of the address space ARIN issued over the last 10 years went
  to less than 20 companies.  (At a significant penalty, I might add, to
  the little guys and especially new entrants, who got screwed in ARIN
  policy for 17 years.)
 
  Before anyone answers this, please ensure you're knowledgeable about
  the IPv4 market today. I am. I characterize it as VERY robust.  Tons of
  supply, with new suppliers showing up every month.  Outside of China,
  prices are low; it's a buyer's market.  There's no speculation that I can
  find, short of a one-off speculator who is a well-known fraudster. There
  is certainly hoarding by the larger companies, but ARIN policy today
  isn't stopping that, and no policy passed here can stop that. Think about
  that last sentence carefully.  ARIN policy is powerless to stop hoarding.
 
  So how do we write policy that helps the non-big guys?  By removing
  artificial policy barriers that require lots of paperwork with ARIN
 beyond
  simply, I bought this /20 from this company, please update Whois.
 
  ARIN's job should simply be to verify the seller is the bona fide
 registrant,
  and that the seller agrees to the transfer, and that the buyer signs an
  RSA and pays whatever fees are necessary to cover the costs of the
  transaction processing.
 
  Let's simplify ARIN processes, make ARIN policy fit the REALITY of
  network operations in a post-exhaustion world, and move on with
  talking about RPKI, DNSSEC, IPv6 and other actually important things
  that will shape our future.
 
  David
  ___
  PPML
  You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
  the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List 

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-18:

[Rudolph Daniel]

Straight away, I would have a problem relating to this proposal when there
is continual mention of small, medium and large without appropriate
definition ...in fact, I am not sure that we can hinge a policy proposal on
such an arbitrary measure.
RD
On Sep 3, 2014 8:18 PM, arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net wrote:

 Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
 arin-ppml@arin.net

 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
 http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
 or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
 arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net

 You can reach the person managing the list at
 arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net

 When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
 than Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest...


 Today's Topics:

1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-18: Simplifying MinimumAllocations
   and Assignments (Jason Schiller)


 --

 Message: 1
 Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 20:17:18 -0400
 From: Jason Schiller jschil...@google.com
 To: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
 Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net arin-ppml@arin.net
 Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-18: Simplifying
 MinimumAllocations and Assignments
 Message-ID:
 CAC4yj2VSx2sXK5Myi65+pDT8uFpoASvQw=
 o0d-oqam657if...@mail.gmail.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

 Steven,

 I didn't see a specific response to the specific question Owen asked.

 Is it your argument that anyone with a single host should be able to
 obtain a /24 per year? If so, then we can agree to disagree and move on.

 If not, where, between 1 and 63 do you think that bar should be set? You
 clearly seem to think that 63 is too high.
 

 Every keeps throwing around the term small but it is not clear what is
 meant by it.  Please define where is the bar for a small end-user and a
 small ISP (end-user and ISP in the ARIN sense of if you get an assignment
 to use in your own network, or an allocation to use in your own network,
 and for your down stream customers).

 If you claim of ARIN policy is unfair to small end-users and you mean small
 to be an organization that does not have plans for 63 machines in 30 days
 and 127 machines in 1 year, then yes, I agree the policy is unfair and
 locks them out.

 If you claim of ARIN policy is unfair to small ISPs and you mean small to
 be an ISP that does not have a plan to 205 IP addresses within 90 days,
 then yes, I agree the policy is unfair and locks them out.

 But remember the ISP gets to count each IP in use on their own
 infrastructure as used.  They also get to count 100% of each subnet that is
 re-allocated or re-assigned to each down stream customers if that customer
 has demonstrated that  they will be using more than 50% of their subnet.

 Four routers that are cross-meshed (connected in a box with a cross inside)
 using a /30 on each of the six point-to-point links and each with a /32
 loopback would account for
 4*1+6*4 = 28 IPs for infrastructure

 Twelve static customers with 6 hosts each (+ router LAN address + network +
 broadcast) is a /28 each
 12*16=192

 192 + 28 = 220 or 85.93% utilization of a /24.

 --

 If your claim is slightly larger ISPs (say one that has pre-orders for
 customer subnets totaling up to a /20) are locked out because even though
 they already have need, they cannot first get and put into service IPs from
 their upstream (as the upstream is unwilling to re-allocate so many IPs),
 and they can't actually deploy all these customers in 30 days and therefor
 do not meet immediate need...  Then I would suggest you look at

 https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_20.html

 One of the goals is to address the problem of ISP slow-start when they can
 no longer get IPs from their upstream.

 --

 If you goal is to dole out all of the small fragments that are left, then
 you might consider changing the policy to be implemented when the largest
 block available from ARIN is a /24.

 --

 If you goal is to allow organizations with only a single host to get a /24,
 you might consider not permitting them an additional /24 a year later,
 unless they can demonstrate efficient use of what they already have.

 I also suspect there will need to be some provision to avoid abuse from
 people spinning up organizations just to get space that they only intend to
 sell, or space that they want to stockpile for use more than two years from
 now.


 ___Jason





 On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:

  Steven,
 
  You are properly following the procedure just fine. Please don?t take my
  comments personally, they were not intended as any form of personal
 slight.
  This is the proper forum to effect policy change and I applaud your
  choosing to participate in the process and bringing a proposal to try and
  solve what you perceive as a problem.
 
  However, I believe that the policy you have proposed would be
  irresponsible 

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN 2014-13

[Rudolph Daniel]

I Support for /24.

RD
On Jul 8, 2014 7:42 PM, arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net wrote:

 Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
 arin-ppml@arin.net

 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
 http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
 or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
 arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net

 You can reach the person managing the list at
 arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net

 When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
 than Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest...


 Today's Topics:

1. Weekly posting summary for p...@arin.net (Thomas Narten)
2. comment - Draft Policy ARIN-2013-8 (Mike Mazarick)
3. Re: comment - Draft Policy ARIN-2013-8 (Matthew Kaufman)
4. Re: LAST CALL: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12:
   Anti-hijack Policy (Matthew Kaufman)
5. Re: LAST CALL: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-13: Reduce
   All Minimum Allocation/Assignment Units to /24 (Matthew Kaufman)
6. Re: LAST CALL: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-5: Remove
   7.2 Lame Delegations (Matthew Kaufman)


 --

 Message: 1
 Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 00:53:03 -0400
 From: Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com
 To: arin-ppml@arin.net
 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for p...@arin.net
 Message-ID: 201407040453.s644r3wz016...@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

 Total of 22 messages in the last 7 days.

 script run at: Fri Jul  4 00:53:03 EDT 2014

 Messages   |  Bytes| Who
 +--++--+
  22.73% |5 | 15.74% |65269 | hanni...@gmail.com
  18.18% |4 | 19.71% |81738 | c...@daydream.com
   4.55% |1 | 31.02% |   128615 | der...@cnets.net
  13.64% |3 | 12.68% |52580 | scottleibr...@gmail.com
  13.64% |3 |  4.31% |17863 | jcur...@arin.net
   4.55% |1 |  5.31% |22027 | mpet...@netflight.com
   4.55% |1 |  3.88% |16098 | celes...@usc.edu
   4.55% |1 |  2.26% | 9382 | khatfi...@socllc.net
   4.55% |1 |  2.15% | 8917 | i...@arin.net
   4.55% |1 |  1.73% | 7180 | nar...@us.ibm.com
   4.55% |1 |  1.19% | 4948 | j...@egh.com
 +--++--+
 100.00% |   22 |100.00% |   414617 | Total



 --

 Message: 2
 Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 16:57:45 -0400
 From: Mike Mazarick mike.mazar...@virtudatacenter.com
 To: arin-ppml@arin.net
 Subject: [arin-ppml] comment - Draft Policy ARIN-2013-8
 Message-ID:
 01c001cf9aef$45776eb0$d0664c10$@mazar...@virtudatacenter.com
 Content-Type: text/plain;   charset=us-ascii

 RE:  Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2013-8

 My comments:

 All of computer science is made up of allocating storage (memory/disk),
 de-allocating storage, or moving bits around.   Like all organizations, the
 current situation we are all in (exhaustion of IPv4 addresses) is due to an
 improper de-allocation of IP addresses.   The fact that we are in 2014
 after
 a 30 year run talking about what to do means that de-allocation is already
 good.   The current situation is due to desktops/servers/storage units
 requiring a new IP address (throwing away the old one) while the core
 routers have the same IPs that were in place when the internet was created.
 There have been effective solutions put in place by ARIN and others to 'put
 a thumb in the dike' of this de-allocation issue.   There are many possible
 solutions, but the proposed solution means that ARIN will 'go slow' with
 allocating the remaining IPv4 addresses stringing out the deployment of
 IPv4
 addresses for as long as possible.   It is already economically very
 difficult for a new entrant to get 'in' and it will be impossible once the
 new policies are in place.

 Now, it is not all bad for there not to be any new entrants into a market
 (it is the heart of standards), and the market gravitates towards three
 major solutions anyway once something becomes a commodity.   The real
 question is has the internet become a commodity already, or is there still
 some juice left in it?.   It is impossible to answer this in advance.   I
 do know that when ARIN was formed, the biggest problem was giving everyone
 internet connectivity, which involved a major expense running wires, buying
 wireless spectrum, etc and the investors who made it possible deserve to be
 paid a profit because they were very successful at deploying internet
 connectivity.

 1)   It appears that there will be no new ISPs and no one will get into
 this
 business.   It is difficult already, but if the draft policy by ARIN is put
 in place, it solidifies and codifies ARIN's ratification of this.  Although
 we all saw the unintended consequences arising when the US Congress made
 possible CLECs (which were unsuccessful in the market) and new ISPs are
 very
 much like CLECs 

Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-12

[Rudolph Daniel]

I generally agree with Kevin. Buy 'should be allocated' I have no problem
with.

Rudi Daniel
On May 22, 2014 10:08 AM, Kevin Kargel kkar...@polartel.com wrote:

 IMHO “Should” and “May” have no place in policy.  They are both no-ops as
 they place no restrictions and carry no authority.  They would be perfectly
 at home in a best practices document, but serve no function in policy.

 Kevin





 *From:* arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] *On
 Behalf Of *Rudolph Daniel
 *Sent:* Wednesday, May 21, 2014 4:34 PM
 *To:* arin-ppml@arin.net
 *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-12




 their experimental documentation (should) clearly describe 

 Would you consider changing 'should' to 'shall' to suggest mandatory
 requirement?

 And

justify why a larger allocation (is required)

 'is required'  to
 'should be allocated'

 Rudi Daniel

 On May 21, 2014 5:20 PM, arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net wrote:

 Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
 arin-ppml@arin.net

 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
 http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
 or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
 arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net

 You can reach the person managing the list at
 arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net

 When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
 than Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest...


 Today's Topics:

1. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12: Anti-hijackPolicy
   (Owen DeLong)
2. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12:Anti-hijack
 Policy
   (Leif Sawyer)
3. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12: Anti-hijack Policy
   (David Farmer)
4. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-13: Reduce All Minimum
   Allocation/Assignment Units to /24 (Derek Calanchini)


 --

 Message: 1
 Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 11:33:42 -0700
 From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
 To: David Farmer far...@umn.edu
 Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
 Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12:
 Anti-hijack Policy
 Message-ID: e966d949-cbe7-4bb2-ae10-0d42b2775...@delong.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

 
  In looking at the sentence in question; I think the have in the
 sentence is extraneous, and can deleted.  Then changing this to a larger
 allocation and the tense changes you suggest, results in;
 
If an organization requires more resource than stipulated by the
minimum allocation sizes in force at the time of their request,
their experimental documentation should clearly describe and
justify why a larger allocation is required.
 

 s/resource/resources/
 s/minimum allocation sizes/applicable minimum allocation size/
 s/experimental documentation/request/

 result:

 If an organization requires more resources than stipulated by the
 applicable minimum allocation in force at the time of their request, their
 request should clearly describe and justify why a larger allocation is
 required.

 I think this not only parses better, but is more accurate.

 The first change resolves a grammar error.
 The second change avoids ambiguity between whether all requests are
 subject to all minimums in this case vs. the intended meaning that the
 minimum applicable elsewhere in policy.
 The third change is because their documentation should be documentation of
 an experiment, not experimental documentation and what we really care about
 is the information provided in their ARIN request anyway.

 I think since this is a minor change which does not alter the meaning of
 the policy and does improve readability and clarity, that we should
 probably go ahead and incorporate it as you proposed prior to last call.

 Owen



 --

 Message: 2
 Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 10:52:48 -0800
 From: Leif Sawyer lsaw...@gci.com
 To: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com, David Farmer far...@umn.edu
 Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net arin-ppml@arin.net
 Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12:
 Anti-hijack Policy
 Message-ID:
 18b2c6e38a3a324986b392b2d18abc5102c7f8a...@fnb1mbx01.gci.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252

 s/should/must


 -Original Message-
 From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On
 Behalf Of Owen DeLong
 Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 10:34 AM
 To: David Farmer
 Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
 Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12:
 Anti-hijack Policy

 
  In looking at the sentence in question; I think the have in the
  sentence is extraneous, and can deleted.  Then changing this to a
  larger allocation and the tense changes you suggest, results in;
 
If an organization requires more resource than stipulated by the
minimum allocation sizes in force at the time of their request,
their experimental documentation should clearly describe and
justify

Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-12

[Rudolph Daniel]

their experimental documentation (should) clearly describe 

Would you consider changing 'should' to 'shall' to suggest mandatory
requirement?

And

   justify why a larger allocation (is required)

'is required'  to
'should be allocated'

Rudi Daniel
 On May 21, 2014 5:20 PM, arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net wrote:

Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
arin-ppml@arin.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest...


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12: Anti-hijackPolicy
  (Owen DeLong)
   2. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12:Anti-hijack
Policy
  (Leif Sawyer)
   3. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12: Anti-hijack Policy
  (David Farmer)
   4. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-13: Reduce All Minimum
  Allocation/Assignment Units to /24 (Derek Calanchini)


--

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 11:33:42 -0700
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
To: David Farmer far...@umn.edu
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12:
Anti-hijack Policy
Message-ID: e966d949-cbe7-4bb2-ae10-0d42b2775...@delong.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii


 In looking at the sentence in question; I think the have in the
sentence is extraneous, and can deleted.  Then changing this to a larger
allocation and the tense changes you suggest, results in;

   If an organization requires more resource than stipulated by the
   minimum allocation sizes in force at the time of their request,
   their experimental documentation should clearly describe and
   justify why a larger allocation is required.


s/resource/resources/
s/minimum allocation sizes/applicable minimum allocation size/
s/experimental documentation/request/

result:

If an organization requires more resources than stipulated by the
applicable minimum allocation in force at the time of their request, their
request should clearly describe and justify why a larger allocation is
required.

I think this not only parses better, but is more accurate.

The first change resolves a grammar error.
The second change avoids ambiguity between whether all requests are subject
to all minimums in this case vs. the intended meaning that the minimum
applicable elsewhere in policy.
The third change is because their documentation should be documentation of
an experiment, not experimental documentation and what we really care about
is the information provided in their ARIN request anyway.

I think since this is a minor change which does not alter the meaning of
the policy and does improve readability and clarity, that we should
probably go ahead and incorporate it as you proposed prior to last call.

Owen



--

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 10:52:48 -0800
From: Leif Sawyer lsaw...@gci.com
To: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com, David Farmer far...@umn.edu
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12:
Anti-hijack Policy
Message-ID:
18b2c6e38a3a324986b392b2d18abc5102c7f8a...@fnb1mbx01.gci.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252

s/should/must


-Original Message-
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On
Behalf Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 10:34 AM
To: David Farmer
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12: Anti-hijack
Policy


 In looking at the sentence in question; I think the have in the
 sentence is extraneous, and can deleted.  Then changing this to a
 larger allocation and the tense changes you suggest, results in;

   If an organization requires more resource than stipulated by the
   minimum allocation sizes in force at the time of their request,
   their experimental documentation should clearly describe and
   justify why a larger allocation is required.


s/resource/resources/
s/minimum allocation sizes/applicable minimum allocation size/
s/experimental documentation/request/

result:

If an organization requires more resources than stipulated by the
applicable minimum allocation in force at the time of their request, their
request should clearly describe and justify why a larger allocation is
required.

I think this not only parses better, but is more accurate.

The first change resolves a grammar error.
The second change avoids ambiguity between whether all requests are subject
to all minimums in this case vs. the intended meaning that the minimum
applicable elsewhere in policy.
The third change is because 

Re: [arin-ppml] policy proposal/min. Allocation/assignment

[Rudolph Daniel]

I support this proposal.

Rudi Daniel
(information technologist)
784 430 9235
On Apr 29, 2014 2:30 PM, arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net wrote:

 Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
 arin-ppml@arin.net

 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
 http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
 or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
 arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net

 You can reach the person managing the list at
 arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net

 When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
 than Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest...


 Today's Topics:

1. Re: Policy Proposal: Reduce all Minimum   Allocation/Assignment
   units to /24 (David Conrad)
2. Re: Policy Proposal: Reduce all Minimum Allocation/Assignment
   units to /24 (Andrew Sullivan)
3. Re: NRPM 4.10 - is a /10 large enough? (David Farmer)
4. Re: NRPM 4.10 - is a /10 large enough? (Skylar MacMinn)
5. Re: NRPM 4.10 - is a /10 large enough? (Leslie Nobile)


 --

 Message: 1
 Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 11:22:30 -0700
 From: David Conrad d...@virtualized.org
 To: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
 Cc: Public Policy Mailing List p...@arin.net, pol...@arin.net
 Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Reduce all Minimum
 Allocation/Assignment units to /24
 Message-ID: 2feb6b2d-d7f2-4371-94fe-9f7f700e2...@virtualized.org
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

 Support.

 Regards,
 -drc

 On Apr 29, 2014, at 10:58 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:

  Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-3.0
 
1.  Policy Proposal Name: Reduce all Minimum
 Allocation/Assignment units to /24
2.  Proposal Originator
a.  name: Owen DeLong
b.  email: o...@delong.com
c.  telephone: 408-890-7992
d.  organization: Hurricane Electric
3.  Date: 29 April, 2014
4.  Problem Statement:
  As we approach runout, more and more end users and smaller ISPs will be
 unable to obtain space from their upstreams and will be seeking space from
 ARIN. In order to meet these needs to the extent possible and to make
 policy more fair to a broader range of the ARIN constituency, we should
 reduce the minimum assignment and allocation units to /24 across the board.
5.  Policy statement:
  Change the minimum allocation and assignment unit for all IPv4 single
 and multi homed instances to /20. This would include:
 
  4.2.1.5 Change all occurrences of /20 and /22 to /24
  4.2.2.1.1 Change all occurrences of /20 to /24, and change 16 /24s to 1
 /24. Remove the example about 12 /24s.
  4.3.2.1   Change both occurrences of /20 to /24
  4.9   Change /22 to /24
  4.9.1 Change all instances of /22 to /24. Remove the reference to 4 /24s.
 
6.  Comments:
a.  Timetable for implementation: Immediate, possibly
 through board action.
b.  Anything else
 
  END OF TEMPLATE
 
  ___
  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:
  http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
  Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

 -- next part --
 An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
 URL: 
 http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140429/ae7baf44/attachment-0001.html
 
 -- next part --
 A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
 Name: signature.asc
 Type: application/pgp-signature
 Size: 495 bytes
 Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
 URL: 
 http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140429/ae7baf44/attachment-0001.bin
 

 --

 Message: 2
 Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:23:55 -0400
 From: Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com
 To: arin-ppml@arin.net
 Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Reduce all Minimum
 Allocation/Assignment units to /24
 Message-ID: 20140429182354.gp1...@mx1.yitter.info
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

 I support this.

 A

 On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 10:58:58AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
  Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-3.0
 
1.  Policy Proposal Name: Reduce all Minimum
 Allocation/Assignment units to /24
2.  Proposal Originator
a.  name: Owen DeLong
b.  email: o...@delong.com
c.  telephone: 408-890-7992
d.  organization: Hurricane Electric
3.  Date: 29 April, 2014
4.  Problem Statement:
  As we approach runout, more and more end users and smaller ISPs will be
 unable to obtain space from their upstreams and will be seeking space from
 ARIN. In order to meet 

Re: [arin-ppml] term limit proposal

[Rudolph Daniel]

Reading with some interest ...let me say that I have no experience of the
AC nor BoTbut some observations;
What exactly is the problem we are proposing a solution to?
Cannot be a social and travel club For sure
Originality and or fresh ideas? Not too sure bout that either
..as a body you are bound by too many codes and practices and more
important;  the range of interests, vested and otherwise to be considered,
begs for a certain level of stability at certain nodes in the process of
shepherding at am organizational level.

It would be interesting to see a history of the membership of both ...maybe
the community can gleam some wisdom from the movements in/out ...some
suggested that more participants resign than those who may want to super
glue themselves to the chair.

What I have noticed as a contributing member on the ppml is a constant
commitment to the task by the AC  BoT members I have had the occasion to
interact with.

OK, so take a year off every 3 years and come back refueled.

Personally, I would feel more accomplished doing x years and moving aside
for someone else..because it may well take close to a year to adjust your
seat for effective and meaningful service to the community and when you
take a year off, you are not coming back as such.you are new to the
seatbut with a history.

History is a complication in the scheme of things...with a tendency to
start where you left off...although you may now find yourself in a very
different construct from where you left off.
Thus introducing a further quotient of personal conflict?

What % of AC and BoT members experience burnout? I would prefer to think
that there is some kind of alarm to safeguard the community from such
inefficiencies in the shepherding process.
Just another view for what it is worth.

Rudi Daniel
 On Mar 26, 2014 2:07 PM, arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net wrote:

 Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
 arin-ppml@arin.net

 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
 http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
 or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
 arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net

 You can reach the person managing the list at
 arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net

 When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
 than Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest...


 Today's Topics:

1. Re: [arin-discuss]  Term Limit Proposal (Bill Darte)
2. Re: [arin-discuss]  Term Limit Proposal (John Springer)


 --

 Message: 1
 Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 13:53:38 -0500
 From: Bill Darte billda...@gmail.com
 To: Scott Leibrand scottleibr...@gmail.com
 Cc: arin-disc...@arin.net arin-disc...@arin.net,ARIN-PPML List
 arin-ppml@arin.net
 Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] [arin-discuss]  Term Limit Proposal
 Message-ID:
 CAMApp36CkSqZHPW+Cy=
 aitqih5rpcksgblz5ti45bkv_f-d...@mail.gmail.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

 Scott said:
 IMO the AC tends to be a little bit slow to incorporate new ideas and
 approaches.  More new faces would help with that.  We also tend a little
 bit toward becoming a social and travel club.  I don't think that is a
 serious problem, yet, but I definitely worry about how many of us stay on
 the AC because we like our colleagues and because we like to travel, rather
 than because we like to talk about, write, and improve ARIN policy.  I
 definitely see that most new AC members are more inclined to spend our time
 together talking about policy than most AC members with longer tenures.


 Scott, I am interested to know more about what you consider examples of new
 ideas and approaches given the highly scripted role of the AC in
 support of the PDP, and given the schedules for AC and ARIN meetings, our
 standing rules and Robert's Rules all guiding our process and activities.
  Also, we as a body are most often criticized IMO for being too liberal in
 our interpretations and support for policy proposals that are re-hashes of
 ideas disposed of in the past or for continuing to engage with proposals
 that are 'moving deck chairs' or v4 exhaustion which the community has
 consistently asked us to stop doing.  I'm sure many would say our workload
 is artificially high now.

 I do not agree that the AC is tending toward becoming a social and travel
 club...I think everyone takes their duties and role in travel seriously,
 but I find no fault with people endeavoring to know one another better, to
 understand where they are coming from and to build relationships.  More
 quality change comes through trust than any other organizational or
 technical skill IMO. And, listening is as important a skill as is speaking
 when it comes to understanding policy issues and other's perspectives.

 In our volunteer role, we all spend a great deal of time with policy
 proposals and policy discussion at meetings and in between.  If we have our
 different approaches 

Re: [arin-ppml] update section 203 proposal

[Rudolph Daniel]

John
Ripe605 made a recall from memory of discussions on the ppml probably
around the time I started participating on the list.
I simply have not made the time to dig back in the archives to refresh my
memoryI do remember a lengthy community discussion about legacy holders
and keeping resources within the regionof course things have changed
since then and I have been listening attentively to the recent exchanges
about inter RIR transferswhich I suspect may continue to evolve after
runout whilst the transition to ipv6 remains slower than we would all
ideally like to seebut there is a suggestion that the reassignments
ecosystem needs some kind of ongoing monitoring mechanism.

Rudi Daniel
(information technologist)
784 430 9235
 On Feb 23, 2014, at 11:50 AM, Rudolph Daniel rudi.dan...@gmail.com
wrote:

This may seem a stupid question, but since we now want to accept that
accuracy is a principle task of registries, what measure are we to use as
an acceptable measure of an accurate 'whois' or at the macro level, ' an
accurate registry service' ?..% of legacy holders participating on the
registry?

It's actually a fairly complicated question, since there are many legacy
holder who already
participate in the registry and update their resources (e.g. abuse contact,
DNS servers)
without any formal contractual relationship with ARIN.  In any case,
individual legacy holders
are unlikely to be the major contributor of inaccuracy in the registry when
compared to those
parties who fail to update the registry with their reassignment information
(despite the
requirement to do so per NRPM 4.2.3.7.)

 We do know that many folks are quite good about making updates before they
request
more IPv4 space, but that's unlikely to be a significant motivator for much
longer...

 FYI,
/John

 John Curran
President and CEO
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:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

Re: [arin-ppml] update section 203 proposal

[Rudolph Daniel]

This may seem a stupid question, but since we now want to accept that
accuracy is a principle task of registries, what measure are we to use as
an acceptable measure of an accurate 'whois' or at the macro level, ' an
accurate registry service' ?..% of legacy holders participating on the
registry?

Rudi Daniel
(information technologist)
784 430 9235
On Feb 22, 2014 7:10 PM, arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net wrote:

Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
arin-ppml@arin.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest...


Today's Topics:

   1. Update to Prop 203 (Martin Hannigan)
   2. Weekly posting summary for p...@arin.net (Thomas Narten)
   3. ARIN Draft Policy 2014-2 Improving 8.4 Anti-Flip  Language
  (Bill Darte)
   4. NANOG 61 - Bellevue - Call For Presentations is open! (Greg Dendy)
   5. 2014-2 8.4 Anti-flip Language (Owen DeLong)


--

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 14:16:23 -0500
From: Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com
To: Public Policy Mailing List p...@arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] Update to Prop 203
Message-ID:
camdxq5nhjjancgctz3yfrrvjuivlso8gk0mjp5vatlp+m1y...@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Einar,

Please update Section 203 Proposal with:



Problem Statement

The importance of maintaining accurate records in the ARIN database is
recognized as the Registries principal task and is not being debated.
The Registry is unable to responsibly fulfill this task. Many resource
holders are not incented through mutual benefits to participate in the
registry, the process or the community and instead operate
successfully outside of its bounds further hampering the mission of
accuracy.

Intent

To create a sustainable RIPE 605-like environment in the ARIN region that
provides mutual benefits to legacy holders and ARIN and in support of
vastly improved and accurate registry service.

Policy Changes

Section 1, Adds to Principles

Accuracy

The principle of Accuracy guarantees stakeholders that all reasonable
and mutually beneficial steps will be take to insure that the Registry
is as accurate as possible.

Fairness

The principle of Fairness guarantees stakeholders that they will be
treated fairly with respect to whatever class of resources they hold,
whether they are pre or post RIR assigned addresses.

Value Add

The principle of Value Add guarantees that the Registry, in its effort
to insure that all of the principles are applied equitably, will seek
to add value to all resource holders regardless of class by insuring
such thing as rapid update functionalities and reasonably easy
transfer administration.

Mutual Benefit

The principle of Mutual Benefit guarantees that ARIN will enter into
or dissolve contracts related to legacy resource holders in like
fashion of comparable Registries.


Section 2, Adds to Definitions

Legacy Internet Resource

Any Internet Resource obtained prior to or otherwise outside the
current system of hierarchical distribution (by allocation or
assignment) through the Regional Internet Registries.

Legacy Internet Resource Holder

The holder of a Legacy Internet Resource. Either by receiving these
resources directly or by receiving (part of) Legacy Internet Resources
from a Legacy Internet Resource Holder.

Registry Service Element

In practice, any Legacy Resource Holder actually avails of a subset of
the Registry Services mentioned above. Where it is necessary to
distinguish between the entire class of Registry Services and the
specific Registry Services actually provided in a particular case, the
latter are described as Registry Service Elements.


--

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 00:53:02 -0500
From: Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for p...@arin.net
Message-ID: 201402210553.s1l5r2sh013...@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Total of 33 messages in the last 7 days.

script run at: Fri Feb 21 00:53:02 EST 2014

Messages   |  Bytes| Who
+--++--+
 33.33% |   11 | 22.14% |   102922 | jcur...@arin.net
 24.24% |8 | 18.42% |85630 | hanni...@gmail.com
  9.09% |3 | 19.83% |92205 | mlind...@lb3law.com
  9.09% |3 | 13.33% |61983 | john.sweet...@twcable.com
  6.06% |2 | 10.25% |47633 | sno...@sonn.com
  6.06% |2 |  4.30% |19979 | d...@virtualized.org
  3.03% |1 |  3.65% |16949 | scottleibr...@gmail.com
  3.03% |1 |  3.35% |15553 | ke...@jcc.com
  3.03% |1 |  3.06% 

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2014-7

[Rudolph Daniel]

Hi
I am clear on what you are saying sir, and in 95% or more of the ARIN
region, I do not see any issues, but we have either an ixp with two
participants or you are designated an private  ISP...
I am suggesting that the stated potential for abuse of the two rule may
also be present in the three rule where the three rule can conceivably be
used to withhold support in some small developing states for sake of some
commercial competitive advantage.
Granted North America is looking towards a significant increase of ixp
s...so too are non North American ARIN countries who are still on a steep
deployment learning curve.

The burden may not be obscenely high, OK, but the focus for change  to 3
has been set @potential for abuse, and the scarcity of resources;
however, currently,
 This policy does not preclude exchange point operators from requesting
address space under other policies.
Rudi Daniel
(information technologist)
784 430 9235
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:31 PM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote:

 There seems to be a clear potential for abuse of the two participant rule
 after run-out of the general ARIN IPv4 free pool.  Also, there seems to be
 a clear potential that changing to three participants will make it more
 difficult for some IXPs to get going.


Agreed, and I would favor the 3 participant rule against the 2 participant
rule.   It would be hard indeed, to start an Exchange later; if all the
reserved resources were allocated to  2-participant exchanges.
The burden should not be obscenely high, for a new Exchange to sign up at
least 3 participants.

As I see it:  ARIN's job after exhaustion, is to try to allocate IP address
resources required today,  not to facilitate the anticipated expansion via
IXPs  that would today be just expensive two-member peering arrangements
structured as a 2 member IXP in order to qualify for some extra /22 or so.


My other observation is:   An Exchange with only two current participants
is not really an Exchange,  but a private peering -- regardless of the
theory of possible additional participants in the future.

While it is ARIN policy not to recover addresses solely due to lack of use,
 PERHAPS   it should be different for IXP  and critical
infrastructure/immediate need  microallocations  under 4.4,   or 4.10.

E.g.   Required notification when the number of verifiable
actively-interconnected Exchange participants drops below 2,

Or, when some or all of the microallocation is no longer being used in the
manner that justified its allocation for Critical Infrastructure:

With possible  required return and renumber requirement  solely due to
non-use.


Thanks.

--
-JH
___
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:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2014-7

[Rudolph Daniel]

I do not support the change from 2 to 3 for end user ixp s.
See my earlier remarks.
Does ARIN have good evidence of abuse of the current situation?

Rudi Daniel
(information technologist)
784 430 9235
On Feb 6, 2014 1:07 PM, arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net wrote:

 Ok.William...thanks for that...was not too sure.

 RD


 On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:34 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:

 On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Rudolph Daniel rudi.dan...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  In the small Caribbean states, although there seems to be
  policy to implement IXP s, many are still not getting the buy
  in from existing ISP s ...so it is possible that an IXP could
  get off the ground with 2 and once up and running, others
  will join in.

 Hi Rudi,

 There aren't many use cases in which renumbering is genuinely trivial.
 Three nodes in a BGP exchange is one of them.

 Regards,
 Bill Herrin



 --
 William D. Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/
 Falls Church, VA 22042-3004




 --

 Rudi Daniel

 *danielcharles consulting
 http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774*



___
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:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2014-4

[Rudolph Daniel]

I am in support of draft 2014-4.

Rudi Daniel
(information technologist)
784 430 9235
On Feb 6, 2014 4:11 PM, arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net wrote:

 Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
 arin-ppml@arin.net

 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
 http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
 or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
 arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net

 You can reach the person managing the list at
 arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net

 When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
 than Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest...


 Today's Topics:

1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro Allocation
   Conservation Update (John Springer)
2. Re: support for 2014-1 (out of region use) (David Huberman)
3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4: REMOVE 4.2.5 WEB HOSTING POLICY
   (John Springer)
4. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro Allocation
   Conservation Update (Michael Still)
5. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4: REMOVE 4.2.5 WEB HOSTING POLICY
   (John Springer)


 --

 Message: 1
 Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 09:26:35 -0800 (PST)
 From: John Springer sprin...@inlandnet.com
 To: David Farmer far...@umn.edu
 Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
 Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro
 Allocation Conservation Update
 Message-ID: alpine.bsf.2.00.1402060904340.72...@mail.inlandnet.com
 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

 Comments inline.

 On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, David Farmer wrote:

  On 2/5/14, 17:36 , Andrew Dul wrote:
  Hello,
 
  This draft policy will be discussed next week at the nanog PPC, in
  addition we welcome feedback on this draft on PPML.  Specifically if you
  could comment on the following two points it would be appreciated.
 
  Thanks,
  Andrew
 
 
  Does the community support raising the minimum requirement for IXPs from
  2 to 3?
 
  I support the change from a two participants to a three participant
 standard
  to qualify as an Internet Exchange Point (IXP).
 
  To date the risk created by allowing the minimum of two participates for
 an
  IXP has been extremely low, as the motivation for abuse was also
 extremely
  low.  However, as we proceed through run-out of the general IPv4 free
 pool
  the motivations for abuse will increase dramatically. Raising the
 standard to
  three participants to qualify as an IXP seems like a prudent precaution
 to
  ensure that the reservation for IXPs, and other critical infrastructure
 that
  was made in ARIN-2011-4, is protected to ensure availability of
 resources for
  legitimate IXPs in the future.
 
  There will be some impact on the start-up of some IXPs, this is
 unfortunate.
  However, the three participant standard is not completely unreasonable,
 given
  the potential for increased abuse of the two participant standard.

 The Open-IX community has had some discussions of this very subject.
 Perhaps the author or other members of the Open-IX Board can summarize on
 this specific matter. I believe the Open-IX community has settled on 3 as
 the way forward. I am OK with that.

  Does the community believe that additional clarity is needed to define
  if an IXP uses the end-user or ISP fee schedule?
 
  I believe both the old language and the new language regarding this issue
  should be stricken, this is an ARIN business issue, not a policy issue.
  I
  have no problem with such a recommendation being included in the comments
  section, outside the policy text itself.  I support the general concept
 it
  represents, but it is just not a policy issue in my opinion.

 many pluses to the paragraph immediately preceeding. I feel that this is a
 direct modification of the fee structure via policy, and therefore do not
 support the draft policy as written.

 John Springer


  Thanks.
 
  --
  
  David Farmer   Email: far...@umn.edu
  Office of Information Technology
  University of Minnesota
  2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
  Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
  
  ___
  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:
  http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
  Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
 
 


 --

 Message: 2
 Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 18:40:55 +
 From: David Huberman david.huber...@microsoft.com
 To: ARIN PPML (p...@arin.net) p...@arin.net
 Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] support for 2014-1 (out of region use)
 Message-ID:
 
 0a573e7e5ec24a34bba99c20501e6...@dm2pr03mb398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com

 Content-Type: text/plain; 

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2014-7

[Rudolph Daniel]

There seems to be a clear potential for abuse of the two participant rule
after run-out of the general ARIN IPv4 free pool.  Also, there seems to be
a clear potential that changing to three participants will make it more
difficult for some IXPs to get going

The potential for abuse mentioned to occur after runout is an indication
that something may need to change.
Raising the bar to 3 is intended to prevent the abuse?
I really can't see that being any more effective than what is currently the
the form.
Regards

Rudi Daniel
(information technologist)
784 430 9235
On Feb 6, 2014 8:31 PM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote:

 There is no evidence of real harm for either side of this argument, there
 can't be.  The two participant rule is currently in place, and there is no
 motivation for abusing the two participant rule just yet. Since its not
 been instantiated yet, there is no way the three participant rule could
 have harmed anyone, and any abuse of the two participant rule isn't going
 to happen until run-out of the general ARIN IPv4 free pool.  So, there is
 no way to decide this one based on real evidence, and it is hyperbole to
 even ask for such evidence from either side.

 I feel I provided a good argument for the proposal and Rudi provided an
 equally good argument against the proposal.  If there are arguments for or
 against that haven't been provided, please provide them for the rest of
 community to consider.

 There seems to be a clear potential for abuse of the two participant rule
 after run-out of the general ARIN IPv4 free pool.  Also, there seems to be
 a clear potential that changing to three participants will make it more
 difficult for some IXPs to get going.

 This is clearly a judgement call, I think both arguments have merit and
 both have faults.  I think it is fine to come down on either side of this
 question.  But, let's try to limit the acrimony and the hyperbole, the AC
 needs a clear reading from the community and those things don't help.

 Thanks.


 On 2/6/14, 14:51 , CJ Aronson wrote:

 Martin

 Do you have any real evidence of real harm being caused by it being two
 instead of three?

 Thanks!
 -Cathy


 On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com
 mailto:hanni...@gmail.com wrote:

 Rudi,

 Do you have any evidence of real harm?

 Best,

 Martin



 --
 
 David Farmer   Email: far...@umn.edu
 Office of Information Technology
 University of Minnesota
 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
 

___
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:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2014-7

[Rudolph Daniel]

Two networks connecting are not necessarily private peers.
In the small Caribbean states, although there seems to be policy to
implement IXP s, many are still not getting the buy in from existing ISP s
...so it is possible that an IXP could get off the ground with 2 and once
up and running, others will join in.
That could be a strategy.

So raising the bar to three minimum may well make it more difficult for
them to get past the starting line. In my locale, we have 2 ISP s. And a
planned IXP.
My argument is that once we have an IXP, there is more of a likely hood
that it will attract new providers, be it specialists like health or
education for example.
And since the number of networks connecting is not the only criteria for
designating an IXP, my opinion is to leave it at two.

Rudi Daniel
(information technologist)
784 430 9235
On Jan 30, 2014 1:19 PM, arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net wrote:

  [image: Boxbe] https://www.boxbe.com/overview This message is eligible
 for Automatic Cleanup! (arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net) Add cleanup 
 rulehttps://www.boxbe.com/popup?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.boxbe.com%2Fcleanup%3Ftoken%3D%252B2Hpz4gnu%252FejMZuSFdv87bmQBOtxEDS3b9X7gpLdwNWGg8XULREXlQT0aw%252Bg4wvXefzxDae7hDB3aavY%252Fl%252BPimWlX2yI0NQXtOB1j063pJn2Hz8TkS%252BrWybaclKxn%252FQH2U8LmZNyew4wxDdpjPd28A%253D%253D%26key%3DpptuT0%252Fde44tGc8pS94PFdMgJuo2iA0z7G0HcQ%252BSG2c%253Dtc_serial=16233316801tc_rand=178071754utm_source=stfutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADDutm_content=001|
  More
 infohttp://blog.boxbe.com/general/boxbe-automatic-cleanup?tc_serial=16233316801tc_rand=178071754utm_source=stfutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADDutm_content=001

 Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
 arin-ppml@arin.net

 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
 http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
 or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
 arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net

 You can reach the person managing the list at
 arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net

 When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
 than Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest...


 Today's Topics:

1. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro Allocation
   Conservation Update (ARIN)
2. Re: NRPM Policies 4.6 and 4.7 Suspended by ARIN Board (ARIN)
3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-5: Remove 7.2 Lame Delegations
   (William Herrin)
4. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-2: Improving 8.4 Anti-Flip
   Language (William Herrin)
5. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-2: Improving 8.4 Anti-Flip
   Language (Bill Darte)
6. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-2: Improving 8.4 Anti-Flip
   Language (William Herrin)
7. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-2: Improving 8.4   Anti-Flip
   Language (David Huberman)


 --

 Message: 1
 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 10:27:44 -0500
 From: ARIN i...@arin.net
 To: arin-ppml@arin.net
 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro
 Allocation Conservation Update
 Message-ID: 52e91df0.9040...@arin.net
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed

 On 24 January 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
 ARIN-prop-200 Section 4.4 Micro Allocation Conservation Update as a
 Draft Policy.

 Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7 is below and can be found at:
 https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_7.html

 You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft
 Policy 2014-7 on the Public Policy Mailing List.

 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 PDP. Specifically, these principles are:

   * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
   * Technically Sound
   * Supported by the Community

 The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at:
 https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html

 Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
 https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html

 Regards,

 Communications and Member Services
 American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


 ## * ##


 Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7
 Section 4.4 Micro Allocation Conservation Update

 Date: 29 January 2014

 Problem Statement:

 Two networks interconnecting are private peers. Three could be
 considered an IXP. In light of exhaustion and the low reserve available
 to CI _and_ the significant growth of IXP's in North America, it is
 prudent to insure that there are minimum criteria that are sensible in
 order to not waste address space on an activity that is delineated by a
 minimum allocation vs. a /30. The barrier to entry remains low regardless.

 Policy statement:

 Change the following paragraph in Section 4.4 from:

 Exchange point operators must provide justification for the allocation,
 including: connection policy, location, other participants (minimum of
 two 

Re: [arin-ppml] proposal 2013-8

[Rudolph Daniel]

I support the proposal as seen

Rudi Daniel
(information technologist)
784 430 9235
On Jan 22, 2014 6:41 PM, arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net wrote:

 Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
 arin-ppml@arin.net

 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
 http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
 or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
 arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net

 You can reach the person managing the list at
 arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net

 When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
 than Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest...


 Today's Topics:

1. Re: NRPM Policies 4.6 and 4.7 Suspended by ARIN Board
   (John Curran)
2. Re: [arin-council] FW: Section 4.4 Micro Allocation
   Conservation Update (prop-200) (Martin Hannigan)
3. Policy Proposal 2013-8 Subsequent Allocations for Additional
   Distrete Network Sites (CJ Aronson)
4. Re: Policy Proposal 2013-8 Subsequent Allocations for
   Additional Distrete Network Sites (Andrew Dul)


 --

 Message: 1
 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 06:51:38 +
 From: John Curran jcur...@arin.net
 To: Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com
 Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net arin-ppml@arin.net
 Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] NRPM Policies 4.6 and 4.7 Suspended by ARIN
 Board
 Message-ID: 2e15fdf6-7efd-43eb-abfb-95ab7bc55...@arin.net
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

  On Jan 21, 2014, at 7:19 PM, Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  It should include a reason why policy needed to be suspended
 unilaterally and clear competitive support. ARIN has real anti trust
 concerns I worry about as a member.   The AC is %company heavy in some
 respects.  We want to make sure this is clean.

 I have suggested to the AC that their recommendation take
 the form of a draft policy which would go through the normal
 policy development process (including Public Policy meeting
 deliberation and advancement based on community support.)

 FYI,
 /John

 John Curran
 President and CEO
 ARIN

 --

 Message: 2
 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 23:27:37 -1000
 From: Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com
 To: Andrew Dul andrew@quark.net
 Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net arin-ppml@arin.net
 Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] [arin-council] FW: Section 4.4 Micro
 Allocation Conservation Update (prop-200)
 Message-ID:
 CAMDXq5NmVDsQdgOBsk5OyqCoDncs=E=
 o8s7nh3vai6dqq+s...@mail.gmail.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

 Andrew,


 On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Andrew Dul andrew@quark.net wrote:

  Hi Marty,
 
  We'll be discussing this at the AC meeting next week.  The 2 to 3
  participants part is pretty straight forward change.  The fee schedule
 

 The majority of IXP operators in North America agree.

 part, we'll likely have to discuss if that is in scope for the PDP, if
  not, that part would have to be moved out of the PDP process and
  probably should be moved to the consultation process.



 I'm surprised at your comment since the existing policy says this:

 ISPs and other organizations receiving these micro-allocations will be
 charged under the ISP fee schedule, while end-users will be charged under
 the fee schedule for end-users. 

 Why wasn't that moved out of the process? Regardless, I'm not particularly
 hung up on that as long as there is clarity as to who gets a extra
 benefit and who does not. The current language is indiscernible.

 Best,

 -M
 -- next part --
 An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
 URL: 
 http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140121/51e2562f/attachment-0001.html
 

 --

 Message: 3
 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:21:14 -0700
 From: CJ Aronson c...@daydream.com
 To: arin-ppml@arin.net arin-ppml@arin.net
 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2013-8 Subsequent Allocations for
 Additional Distrete Network Sites
 Message-ID:
 
 cac6jzks+bihmeniymuunr+oce7bm31mswvtj3j2bvgno3au...@mail.gmail.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

 Hi everyone,

 If you have feedback on this proposal please send it to this list.  We will
 also be discussing the policy proposal at the upcoming PPC.

 Thanks!
 Cathy


 *Policy Proposal 2013-8 Subsequent Allocations for Additional Distrete
 Network Sites*

 *Problem Statement:*

 During the ARIN 32 PPM, ARIN staff noted in the Policy Implementation and
 Experience Report that the current Multiple Discrete Network Policy (MDN)
 does not contain criteria for new sites of an existing MDN customer.

 Current ARIN practice is to use the Immediate Need policy (NRPM 4.2.1.6).

 This policy proposal seeks to add NRPM text to clarify criteria for new
 sites of existing MDN customers.



 *Policy Statement:*

 IPv4:

 Add the following statement to section 4.5.4.

 Upon verification that the organization has already obtained 

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 103, Issue 1 micro allocations For IXP

[Rudolph Daniel]

Re: Someone pointed me at 4.4 and noted that it says that an IXP can
receive an
allocation if two parties are present. The common understanding in the
industry is that two parties connected are private peering and three on a
common switch could be an IXP.
Is there a reason not to bump this number up to three in light of
prevailing circumstances and conservation of the infrastructure pool? If
two is arbitrarily low, it's a good time to make three arbitrarily low. I
think it would be wise in terms of insuring that resources are being used
effectively.
End quote

ViewMy offered view is If you have an IXP and meet the criteria for
allocation then why can it not be a min 2 operators.
Two change it to 3, because so many IXP s are 3 up... does not sound like
good justificationbecause whether 2 or 3.it is still either private
peering OR 'could be an IXP'.

I also question the payback for changing .. V..  insuring  the effective
use of resources.

Additionally, I would ask the question...are we to reasonably to expect
that the exact same situation ie ...how we understand the function and use
of an IXP will that stay the same for IPv6 as we see more of the
development of the.. internet of things which may well morph or maybe
re define some parts of network architect??
Or do you think that IPv6 adoption is not going to have much or little
effect on IXPs
RD
HNY


On Jan 9, 2014 8:08 PM, arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net wrote:

 Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
 arin-ppml@arin.net

 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
 http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
 or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
 arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net

 You can reach the person managing the list at
 arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net

 When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
 than Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest...


 Today's Topics:

1. Weekly posting summary for p...@arin.net (Thomas Narten)
2. 4.4 Micro Allocations and IXP requirements (Martin Hannigan)
3. Re: 4.4 Micro Allocations and IXP requirements (David Farmer)
4. Re: 4.4 Micro Allocations and IXP requirements (Martin Hannigan)
5. Re: 4.4 Micro Allocations and IXP requirements (CJ Aronson)
6. Re: 4.4 Micro Allocations and IXP requirements (Aaron)


 --

 Message: 1
 Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2014 00:53:02 -0500
 From: Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com
 To: arin-ppml@arin.net
 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for p...@arin.net
 Message-ID: 201401030553.s035r2y5010...@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

 Total of 1 messages in the last 7 days.

 script run at: Fri Jan  3 00:53:02 EST 2014

 Messages   |  Bytes| Who
 +--++--+
 100.00% |1 |100.00% | 6145 | nar...@us.ibm.com
 +--++--+
 100.00% |1 |100.00% | 6145 | Total



 --

 Message: 2
 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 16:41:16 -0500
 From: Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com
 To: arin-ppml@arin.net arin-ppml@arin.net
 Subject: [arin-ppml] 4.4 Micro Allocations and IXP requirements
 Message-ID:
 CAMDXq5NO_k2jSUAp4Qy_7mgFpJE=
 k-fv1umqsyngc7-apkq...@mail.gmail.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

 Someone pointed me at 4.4 and noted that it says that an IXP can receive an
 allocation if two parties are present. The common understanding in the
 industry is that two parties connected are private peering and three on a
 common switch could be an IXP.

 Is there a reason not to bump this number up to three in light of
 prevailing circumstances and conservation of the infrastructure pool? If
 two is arbitrarily low, it's a good time to make three arbitrarily low. I
 think it would be wise in terms of insuring that resources are being used
 effectively.

 Thoughts?


 -M
 -- next part --
 An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
 URL: 
 http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140109/83b5a123/attachment-0001.html
 

 --

 Message: 3
 Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 16:15:49 -0600
 From: David Farmer far...@umn.edu
 To: Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com,   arin-ppml@arin.net
 arin-ppml@arin.net
 Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 4.4 Micro Allocations and IXP requirements
 Message-ID: 52cf1f95.9080...@umn.edu
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

 On 1/9/14, 15:41 , Martin Hannigan wrote:
 
  Someone pointed me at 4.4 and noted that it says that an IXP can receive
  an allocation if two parties are present. The common understanding in
  the industry is that two parties connected are private peering and three
  on a common switch could be an IXP.
 
  Is there a reason not to bump this number up to three in light of
  prevailing circumstances and