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

[Mark Andrews]

> On 16 Jan 2021, at 03:41, Jay Wendelin  wrote:
> 
> You would have to ask the ISP’s themselves.  My Schools will not want to be 
> involved at all nor will we want to implement new and expensive technologies 
> for ip6.

Why do you think that it would be expensive?  Also what makes you think IPv6 is 
new?  All the children in your schools are younger than IPv6.  If IPv6 could 
legally drink in every state in the US if it was a person.  I’ve been using 
IPv6 at home for 18 years now.  I’ve been working on IPv6 equipment for over 2 
decades now.  IPv6 isn’t “new”.

Much of your equipment already supports IPv6 and has done for well over a 
decade now. I would bet that all of the computers (desktop and laptop) already 
support IPv6.  All your tablet computers will.  All your smart phones do.  What 
may not is “smart” TVs and “smart” whiteboards.  Unfortunately they don’t come 
from forward thinking manufactures.  Your router may or may not support it.  It 
really depends on its age and if it cost more than USD50.

It doesn’t cost your ISP anymore to deliver IPv6 along side IPv4.  ISPs get 
IPv6 addresses for next to nothing.  A /48 is about a cent a year with a /32 
allocation USD1000 (support ~65000 customers) and only gets cheap on a per 
customer basis with larger allocations.  This is much cheaper than IPv4 is on a 
per customer basis.  RIRs also only charge the maximum of the IPv4, IPv6 
allocation costs so for most ISPs they can get IPv6 addresses to $0.

https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/

Mark

> 
> Jay Wendelin
> Chief Information Officer
> Cell: 309-657-5303
> j...@poweredbystl.com
> 
>  
>  
> From: Fernando Frediani 
> Date: Friday, January 15, 2021 at 10:36 AM
> To: Jay Wendelin 
> Cc: arin-ppml 
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of 
> Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16
> 
> WARNING: This message originated from outside of the organization. Please do 
> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source of this 
> email and can ensure the content is safe.
>  
> Didn't these ISPs in 2021 not invest IPv6 deployment and good CGNAT 
> techniques and they rely only on keep getting more addresses from ARIN ?
>  
> Fernando
> 
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2021, 13:29 Jay Wendelin,  wrote:
> I support this petition, I have many Public School Clients that rely on their 
> ISP’s to manage and offer IP address. 
>  
> Jay Wendelin
> CIO
> STL/BTS
>  
> 
> Jay Wendelin
> Chief Information Officer
> Cell: 309-657-5303
> j...@poweredbystl.com
> 
>  
> ___
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
> ___
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742  INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

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

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jan 18, 2021, at 7:23 AM, Jason Baugher  wrote:
> 
> In rural America, many school districts are quite small from a student count 
> perspective, while geographically fairly large. They likely have a single 
> tech coordinator, and sometimes that person is also expected to teach a few 
> classes. Their networks don't run any routing protocols, let alone BGP, and 
> they have never heard of an ASN.

This current reality does not mean that they would not benefit from having them 
if they could get proper assistance deploying them and proper training for the 
staff to maintain it. I’m not sure how to bridge that gap, but I would like to 
see it happen.

Owen

> 
> Jason
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: ARIN-PPML  On Behalf Of 
> sc...@solarnetone.org
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 1:14 PM
> To: Jay Wendelin 
> Cc: arin-ppml 
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of 
> Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16
> 
> CAUTION: This email is from OUTSIDE our organization.
> Please do not open/download any attachment or click any link unless you know 
> it's safe.
> 
> 
> I am supposing then that there are no STEM programs at the referenced 
> schools, or at least no networking track?  A school district is an entity 
> that is generally of large enough size to benefit from having its own AS and 
> address block to start with, and stable enough to act as backbone in many 
> instances.
> 
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2021, Jay Wendelin wrote:
> 
>> 
>> You would have to ask the ISP's themselves.  My Schools will not want
>> to be involved at all nor will we want to implement new and expensive
>> technologies for ip6.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> cidimage001.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
>> 
>> Jay Wendelin
>> 
>> Chief Information Officer
>> 
>> Cell: 309-657-5303
>> 
>> j...@poweredbystl.com
>> 
>> cidimage002.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0 cidimage003.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
>> cidimage004.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Fernando Frediani 
>> Date: Friday, January 15, 2021 at 10:36 AM
>> To: Jay Wendelin 
>> Cc: arin-ppml 
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of
>> Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16
>> 
>> WARNING: This message originated from outside of the organization.
>> Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
>> source of this email and can ensure the content is safe.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Didn't these ISPs in 2021 not invest IPv6 deployment and good CGNAT
>> techniques and they rely only on keep getting more addresses from ARIN ?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Fernando
>> 
>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2021, 13:29 Jay Wendelin,  wrote:
>> 
>>  I support this petition, I have many Public School Clients that
>>  rely on their ISP's to manage and offer IP address.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  Jay Wendelin
>> 
>>  CIO
>> 
>>  STL/BTS
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  cidimage001.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
>> 
>>  Jay Wendelin
>> 
>>  Chief Information Officer
>> 
>>  Cell: 309-657-5303
>> 
>>  j...@poweredbystl.com
>> 
>>  cidimage002.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
>>  cidimage003.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
>>  cidimage004.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> Jason Baugher, Network Operations Manager
> 405 Emminga Road | PO Box 217 | Golden, IL 62339-0217
> P:(217) 696-4411 | F:(217) 696-4811 | www.adams.net
> [Adams-Logo]
> 
> The information contained in this email message is PRIVILEGED AND 
> CONFIDENTIAL, and is intended for the use of the addressee and no one else. 
> If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute, 
> reproduce or use this email message (or the attachments) and notify the 
> sender of the mistaken transmission. Thank you.
> ___
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

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

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jan 17, 2021, at 12:00 PM, Chris Woodfield  wrote:
> 
> Obviously this thread is going somewhat off-topic and my reply isn’t going to 
> help matters - the idea that peer to peer is useless is a factor, but it’s 
> more than that - it’s the fact that the vast majority of customers, service 
> providers, and operators have come to view NAT and the use of private space 
> as a form of security perimeter, and that allowing internal hosts/networks to 
> be numbered from globally-routable space represents a security risk.
> 
> You, I, and most of the people reading PPML know that mindset is completely 
> fallacious, but it’s quite pervasive and takes quite a bit of education to 
> disabuse otherwise quite savvy operators of this notion.

Yep… I’ve done a lot of that reeducation over the years. It amazes me the 
number of people who have trouble separating stateful inspection from NAT and 
just can’t wrap their heads around the idea that you can still do stateful 
inspection even if you don’t mutilate the packet header in the process.


> It’s interesting that a lot of IPv6 evangelism that I’ve seen over the years 
> doesn’t address this concern - IMO we should be spending quite a bit of 
> energy fighting that mindset.

I’ve tried as best I can to address it head on each and every time it comes up. 
I haven’t figured out
a way to be proactive about addressing it that doesn’t come off as 
antagonistic, patronizing, or confrontational (sometimes I even hit all 3), so 
suggestions there are welcome.

In fact, I argue that lack of address transparency is contrary to good security 
because it breaks the continuity of audit trails and makes it harder to 
identify miscreants and compromised systems.

Owen

> 
> -C
> 
>> On Jan 15, 2021, at 11:39 PM, Owen DeLong > > wrote:
>> 
>> The biggest problem surrounding IPv4 is this idea that peer to peer is 
>> useless and we should all accept the idea of provider/supplicant and second 
>> class citizens.
>> 
> 

___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

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

[hostmaster]

I am aware of such districts in the panhandle of Florida.  Generally they 
obtain internet access much the same way as any resident or commercial 
customer at each school and use the provided devices in the default 
configuration. Sometimes they request a static address for remote 
management, or they simply note the assigned address which rarely changes 
in most networks even if it is not static.  They are often using the same 
type equipment used by the regular customers, often with a few wifi 
extenders attached to the network to handle dead zones, but no ASN's or 
otherwise.


My own home network is more complex than their network, which runs in the 
providers default configuration, including the use of IPv6.


Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, Jason Baugher wrote:


In rural America, many school districts are quite small from a student count 
perspective, while geographically fairly large. They likely have a single tech 
coordinator, and sometimes that person is also expected to teach a few classes. 
Their networks don't run any routing protocols, let alone BGP, and they have 
never heard of an ASN.

Jason

-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML  On Behalf Of sc...@solarnetone.org
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 1:14 PM
To: Jay Wendelin 
Cc: arin-ppml 
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of 
Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16

CAUTION: This email is from OUTSIDE our organization.
Please do not open/download any attachment or click any link unless you know 
it's safe.


I am supposing then that there are no STEM programs at the referenced schools, 
or at least no networking track?  A school district is an entity that is 
generally of large enough size to benefit from having its own AS and address 
block to start with, and stable enough to act as backbone in many instances.

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021, Jay Wendelin wrote:



You would have to ask the ISP's themselves.  My Schools will not want
to be involved at all nor will we want to implement new and expensive
technologies for ip6.





cidimage001.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0

Jay Wendelin

Chief Information Officer

Cell: 309-657-5303

j...@poweredbystl.com

cidimage002.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0 cidimage003.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
cidimage004.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0





From: Fernando Frediani 
Date: Friday, January 15, 2021 at 10:36 AM
To: Jay Wendelin 
Cc: arin-ppml 
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of
Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16

WARNING: This message originated from outside of the organization.
Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
source of this email and can ensure the content is safe.



Didn't these ISPs in 2021 not invest IPv6 deployment and good CGNAT
techniques and they rely only on keep getting more addresses from ARIN ?



Fernando

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021, 13:29 Jay Wendelin,  wrote:

  I support this petition, I have many Public School Clients that
  rely on their ISP's to manage and offer IP address.



  Jay Wendelin

  CIO

  STL/BTS



  cidimage001.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0

  Jay Wendelin

  Chief Information Officer

  Cell: 309-657-5303

  j...@poweredbystl.com

  cidimage002.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
  cidimage003.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
  cidimage004.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0



___
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.





Jason Baugher, Network Operations Manager
405 Emminga Road | PO Box 217 | Golden, IL 62339-0217
P:(217) 696-4411 | F:(217) 696-4811 | www.adams.net
[Adams-Logo]

The information contained in this email message is PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL, 
and is intended for the use of the addressee and no one else. If you are not 
the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute, reproduce or use this 
email message (or the attachments) and notify the sender of the mistaken 
transmission. Thank you.
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.


___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:

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

[Jason Baugher]

In rural America, many school districts are quite small from a student count 
perspective, while geographically fairly large. They likely have a single tech 
coordinator, and sometimes that person is also expected to teach a few classes. 
Their networks don't run any routing protocols, let alone BGP, and they have 
never heard of an ASN.

Jason

-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML  On Behalf Of sc...@solarnetone.org
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 1:14 PM
To: Jay Wendelin 
Cc: arin-ppml 
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of 
Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16

CAUTION: This email is from OUTSIDE our organization.
Please do not open/download any attachment or click any link unless you know 
it's safe.


I am supposing then that there are no STEM programs at the referenced schools, 
or at least no networking track?  A school district is an entity that is 
generally of large enough size to benefit from having its own AS and address 
block to start with, and stable enough to act as backbone in many instances.

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021, Jay Wendelin wrote:

>
> You would have to ask the ISP's themselves.  My Schools will not want
> to be involved at all nor will we want to implement new and expensive
> technologies for ip6.
>
>
>
>
>
> cidimage001.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
>
> Jay Wendelin
>
> Chief Information Officer
>
> Cell: 309-657-5303
>
> j...@poweredbystl.com
>
> cidimage002.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0 cidimage003.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
> cidimage004.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Fernando Frediani 
> Date: Friday, January 15, 2021 at 10:36 AM
> To: Jay Wendelin 
> Cc: arin-ppml 
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of
> Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16
>
> WARNING: This message originated from outside of the organization.
> Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
> source of this email and can ensure the content is safe.
>
>
>
> Didn't these ISPs in 2021 not invest IPv6 deployment and good CGNAT
> techniques and they rely only on keep getting more addresses from ARIN ?
>
>
>
> Fernando
>
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2021, 13:29 Jay Wendelin,  wrote:
>
>   I support this petition, I have many Public School Clients that
>   rely on their ISP's to manage and offer IP address.
>
>
>
>   Jay Wendelin
>
>   CIO
>
>   STL/BTS
>
>
>
>   cidimage001.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
>
>   Jay Wendelin
>
>   Chief Information Officer
>
>   Cell: 309-657-5303
>
>   j...@poweredbystl.com
>
>   cidimage002.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
>   cidimage003.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
>   cidimage004.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
>
>
>
> ___
> 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.
>
>
>

Jason Baugher, Network Operations Manager
405 Emminga Road | PO Box 217 | Golden, IL 62339-0217
P:(217) 696-4411 | F:(217) 696-4811 | www.adams.net
[Adams-Logo]

The information contained in this email message is PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL, 
and is intended for the use of the addressee and no one else. If you are not 
the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute, reproduce or use this 
email message (or the attachments) and notify the sender of the mistaken 
transmission. Thank you.
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

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

[Chris Woodfield]

Obviously this thread is going somewhat off-topic and my reply isn’t going to 
help matters - the idea that peer to peer is useless is a factor, but it’s more 
than that - it’s the fact that the vast majority of customers, service 
providers, and operators have come to view NAT and the use of private space as 
a form of security perimeter, and that allowing internal hosts/networks to be 
numbered from globally-routable space represents a security risk.

You, I, and most of the people reading PPML know that mindset is completely 
fallacious, but it’s quite pervasive and takes quite a bit of education to 
disabuse otherwise quite savvy operators of this notion.

It’s interesting that a lot of IPv6 evangelism that I’ve seen over the years 
doesn’t address this concern - IMO we should be spending quite a bit of energy 
fighting that mindset.

-C

> On Jan 15, 2021, at 11:39 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
> 
> The biggest problem surrounding IPv4 is this idea that peer to peer is 
> useless and we should all accept the idea of provider/supplicant and second 
> class citizens.
> 

___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

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

[A N]

Owen, IPv6 hesitation is very common in schools and even at many
universities. Part of it is that with smaller staff, it's generally not
risen up as a priority. (Sorry to be off topic.)

On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 1:26 AM Owen DeLong  wrote:

> Unless you consider 10+ year old technology “new”, IPv6 does not require
> new or expensive technologies.
>
> The internet is moving (albeit much slower than would be ideal) to IPv6.
> You’re too late to lead, but there’s still time to be in the large scale
> adoption herd. The next category available will be the left-behinds.
>
> Owen
>
>
> On Jan 15, 2021, at 8:41 AM, Jay Wendelin  wrote:
>
> You would have to ask the ISP’s themselves.  My Schools will not want to
> be involved at all nor will we want to implement new and expensive
> technologies for ip6.
>
>
>  
> *Jay Wendelin*
> *Chief Information Officer*
> *Cell: *309-657-5303
> j...@poweredbystl.com
>  
> 
> 
>
>
>
> *From: *Fernando Frediani 
> *Date: *Friday, January 15, 2021 at 10:36 AM
> *To: *Jay Wendelin 
> *Cc: *arin-ppml 
> *Subject: *Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of
> Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16
> *WARNING:* This message originated from outside of the organization.
> Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
> source of this email and can ensure the content is safe.
>
> Didn't these ISPs in 2021 not invest IPv6 deployment and good CGNAT
> techniques and they rely only on keep getting more addresses from ARIN ?
>
>
> Fernando
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2021, 13:29 Jay Wendelin,  wrote:
>
> I support this petition, I have many Public School Clients that rely on
> their ISP’s to manage and offer IP address.
>
> Jay Wendelin
> CIO
> STL/BTS
>
> [image: cidimage001.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0] 
> *Jay Wendelin*
> *Chief Information Officer*
> *Cell: *309-657-5303
> j...@poweredbystl.com
> [image: cidimage002.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0]
> [image:
> cidimage003.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0] [image:
> cidimage004.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0] 
>
> ___
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
> ___
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>
> ___
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

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

[Owen DeLong]

Well said, Mike. For once, I am in complete agreement with you.

While I personally have mixed feelings about the policy, I voted against it in 
the AC because I did not feel that it achieved the necessary level of support 
in the community and I felt that there was merit in the opposition arguments.

While I do recognize that it can be difficult to distinguish grass roots from 
astroturfing, I think that anyone stepping forward with a cogent argument 
should be presumed to be legitimate until proven otherwise and in any case 
deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.

Owen


> On Jan 15, 2021, at 12:21 PM, Mike Burns  wrote:
> 
> Count me as embarrassed at the treatment of new posters on this list.
> Demeaned as recipients of payments for expressing their opinion, mocked for 
> offering support without establishing bona fides.
> Dismissed because no reasoning is provided in support of their opinions.
> And finally attacked when they do.
>  
> I hope the Trustees who will make this decision are aware of the importance 
> of bottom-up, stakeholder governance, and realize these numerous expressions 
> of support might be the first steps of these posters towards the kind of 
> ongoing community participation we claim to value. 
>  
> Aren’t we all sick of the same voices?
>  
> Regards,
> Mike Burns
>  
> PS ARIN does not require resource holders use NAT, much less CGNAT. 
> If you feel that should be a requirement, write a policy proposal.
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: ARIN-PPML  On Behalf Of Robert Clarke
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 2:55 PM
> To: Jay Wendelin 
> 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
>  
> Isn't this like saying "please give me free land so I can lease it onto 
> schools and other noble public institutions?" 
>  
> I don't feel like this argument has weight nor does your business take 
> priority over the actual non profit businesses that won't get allocations 
> because of this policy.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Robert
> 
> 
>> On Jan 15, 2021, at 8:29 AM, Jay Wendelin > > wrote:
>>  
>> I support this petition, I have many Public School Clients that rely on 
>> their ISP’s to manage and offer IP address. 
> 
>  
> ___
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

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

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jan 15, 2021, at 9:31 AM, Mark Kiwiet  wrote:
> 
> Inside/Private network space will probably always be IPv4.   I don't 
> understand why you would deal with IPv6 on the inside - you have the entire 
> freaking class A of 10.0.0.0/8  to design around - and 
> make beautiful designs as well.

Many many reasons…

1.  Your IPv4 inside addresses are not going to communicate as well with 
IPv6 outside addresses
as native IPv6 addresses would.

2.  The overhead and cost involved in maintaining bifurcated 
infrastructures is excessive with
very little benefit once you no longer need IPv4 support for your 
external connectivity.
(No, that day is not yet here, but it is coming and I do look forward 
to it)

3.  NAT breaks audit trails and makes troubleshooting and identifying 
compromised systems
unnecessarily difficult.

4.  IPv6 allows you much greater flexibility in numbering your network in a 
structured and
logical way without having to preplan how many hosts a given subnet 
needs to accommodate.
If I had a nickel for every time I’ve encountered an IPv4 10.x.x.x 
interface on a router
that has 3 or more different subnets all sharing the same link because 
they ran out of
space on the first 2 as the subnet expanded, I could probably afford a 
beverage from
Seattle’s Most Overpriced Beverage Vendor. With IPv6, you assign a /64 
and you’ll
never run out of room for additional hosts on the subnet no matter what.

(You’ll hit MAC layer forwarding table limits before you use up the 
addresses)

5.  If you were building greenfield today, why would you deal with IPv4 on 
the inside? Why
not deploy pure IPv6 and use NAT64 or similar technology at the edge if 
you still need
to preserve IPv4 connectivity for now. Advantage: In a few years, you 
just turn off the
translator without major network upheaval. If you deploy a greenfield 
network as if
it were a v4 network from bygone years, you’re still going to face all 
the hurdles of
transition some day.

6.  Finally, “dealing with IPv6” is a LOT easier than dealing with IPv4. 
It’s just different.

> Unless you're running a NOC or a Web Server Farm - you really don't need more 
> than 1 Public IP address for even 500+ private surfing endpoints.   Outside 
> of standard ports like TCP/25 - you can overload a single IP address with 
> hundreds of high random ports.

But why would you want to? What possible advantage is there to this? This seems 
almost like slave mentality. We’ve gotten so used to the scarcity of IPv4 
addresses and the hacks used to work around it that we’ve not only accepted the 
bondage of the IPv4 shackles, we’ve come to embrace them with some bizarre kind 
of reverence as if deploying something friendlier is some form of sacrilege. It 
boggles the mind, truly.

> Right now - the biggest public IPv4 issue is waste.   There are tons of 
> public IPv4's that are not used because they are part of an overallocated 
> customer block.   

No… The biggest IPv4 issue is the lack of unicast addresses. There are nearly 7 
billion people on this planet. Each one has or likely will have at least 5 
personal iPv4 end points. That’s a need for a minimum of 35 billion addresses 
to build out a peer to peer network without even counting infrastructure, 
service providers, servers, etc.

The biggest problem surrounding IPv4 is this idea that peer to peer is useless 
and we should all accept the idea of provider/supplicant and second class 
citizens.

Owen

> 
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 10:51 AM  > wrote:
> What expensive technology are you talking about?  Windows has had IPv6 
> since Windows 2000.  Ditto with Apple or Chromebooks or any other tech 
> that is commonly used in schools.
> 
> Use of RFC1918 Ipv4 addresses is quite common in every school I have ever 
> dealt with. Even at the university level, it is very uncommon to assign 
> workstations to public IPv4 addresses, and some form of NAT is used for 
> IPv4 access via common public addresses with or without a proxy.
> 
> Albert Erdmann
> Network Administrator
> Paradise On Line Inc.
> 
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2021, Jay Wendelin wrote:
> 
> > 
> > You would have to ask the ISP’s themselves.  My Schools will not want to be 
> > involved at all nor will we want to implement new and expensive 
> > technologies for
> > ip6.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > cidimage001.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
> > 
> > Jay Wendelin
> > 
> > Chief Information Officer
> > 
> > Cell: 309-657-5303
> > 
> > j...@poweredbystl.com 
> > 
> > cidimage002.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0 cidimage003.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0 
> > cidimage004.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > From: Fernando Frediani mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>>
> > Date: Friday, January 15, 2021 at 10:36 AM
> > To: Jay Wendelin 

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

[Owen DeLong]

Unless you consider 10+ year old technology “new”, IPv6 does not require new or 
expensive technologies.

The internet is moving (albeit much slower than would be ideal) to IPv6. You’re 
too late to lead, but there’s still time to be in the large scale adoption 
herd. The next category available will be the left-behinds.

Owen


> On Jan 15, 2021, at 8:41 AM, Jay Wendelin  wrote:
> 
> You would have to ask the ISP’s themselves.  My Schools will not want to be 
> involved at all nor will we want to implement new and expensive technologies 
> for ip6.
>  
>  
>   
> Jay Wendelin
> Chief Information Officer
> Cell: 309-657-5303
> j...@poweredbystl.com 
>   
>  
> 
>  
>  
> From: Fernando Frediani mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>>
> Date: Friday, January 15, 2021 at 10:36 AM
> To: Jay Wendelin mailto:j...@poweredbystl.com>>
> Cc: arin-ppml mailto: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
> 
> WARNING: This message originated from outside of the organization. Please do 
> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source of this 
> email and can ensure the content is safe.
>  
> Didn't these ISPs in 2021 not invest IPv6 deployment and good CGNAT 
> techniques and they rely only on keep getting more addresses from ARIN ?
>  
> Fernando
> 
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2021, 13:29 Jay Wendelin,  > wrote:
> I support this petition, I have many Public School Clients that rely on their 
> ISP’s to manage and offer IP address. 
>  
> Jay Wendelin
> CIO
> STL/BTS
>  
>     
> Jay Wendelin
> Chief Information Officer
> Cell: 309-657-5303
> j...@poweredbystl.com 
>    
> 
>  
> ___
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net 
> ).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml 
> 
> Please contact i...@arin.net  if you experience any 
> issues.
> ___
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

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

[Robert Clarke]

@Mike Burns 

"Count me as embarrassed at the treatment of new posters on this list."

I'll continue to advocate for the side of the argument that leans towards a 
distribution of ARIN IPV4 resources to more organizations. As I've said many 
times over the prior few months, everyone who stands to gain from ARIN-2020-2 
obviously has a direct financial incentive to be loud in support of it. Those 
who stand to lose (IPv4 requesters in the coming years), are likely not even 
aware of this discussion. 

Are you implying that new participants should not be subjected to the same 
level of criticism from the group when posting support of ARIN-2020-2?

Regards,

Robert

> On Jan 15, 2021, at 12:21 PM, Mike Burns  wrote:
> 
> ___
> 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://www.google.com/url?q=https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml=gmail-imap=161134690800=AOvVaw2Pmllo5r_uAc0g_CTmw-qm
> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

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

[Fernando Frediani]

Yes I am fully aware how many are required in support to the petition, but
if your read this email thread subject this is about the Draft Policy not
about the petition (which is in another thread).

This forum is also about discussing technical aspects of the proposals
(Technically Sound right?), therefore if during a proposal discussion
someone says there is no solution in support to a proposal there is nothing
wrong someone else to reply saying that there are IPv6 and CGNAT techniques
for example.
If whoever reads this response doesn't like it, nothing we can do about
people's feelings. We are here to discuss the issues and find solutions
that are fair for all, not to just a few.

Regards
Fernando


On Fri, 15 Jan 2021, 18:17 Mike Burns,  wrote:

> Hi Fernando,
>
>
>
> You keep saying this proposal doesn’t have community support and that is
> plain wrong, and getting more wrong daily.
>
> It had and has community support, and it had majority AC support, just not
> supermajority.
>
> So your arguments about lack of community support are not applicable, as
> apparently this decision came down to a few people on the AC at the time.
>
>
>
> Maybe your default position for new posters is they probably visited a
> website for free beers and should be grilled.
>
> Have  you seen the signatures and job titles being posted, even including
> ARIN membership numbers?
>
> Do you have an ARIN membership number?
>
> Can we see your papers to ensure  you aren’t getting free beer and can be
> “dismissed”?
>
> Do you see how objectionable this stuff is, and where it can lead?
>
>
>
> None of that matters, as we are not judging this policy by motivations nor
> by popularity.
>
> But the petition process demands numbers, pure numbers, and postings in
> support of the petition don’t require the same depth of arguments in
> support of the underlying proposal anyway, as you yourself pointed out! The
> process virtually requires the sort of postings we are seeing, or does the
> number 25 require 25 separate reasoning discussions?
>
>
>
> The Trustees have heard the arguments by now I am sure, and the support of
> the petition must be at or near the required 25 by now.
>
> Unsolicited advice to new posters on how to run their networks and the
> need to use IPv6 are a waste of time, and are the correct way to keep the
> community tiny.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> PS If we have reached 25 petitions, please let us know. Somebody must be
> counting.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ARIN-PPML  *On Behalf Of *Fernando
> Frediani
> *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2021 3:34 PM
> *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
>
>
>
> Yes we are, mainly when there are tentatives to push something that hasn't
> been broadly accepted by the community as many other proposals that didn't
> progress.
>
> If a proposal doesn't reach consensus is probably because it didn't
> resolve all the possible issues it had during the discussion period
> regardless of how many people supported it.
>
> And by the way: there are absolutely nothing wrong in dismissing supports
> when they have no substantial justifications to contribute to resolve the
> opened issues. That's what is evaluated by the AC.
> Otherwise we may end up having supports to proposals "because once the
> person visited the author's company and they give free beers to visitors".
>
> Process keep being bottom-up, everyone is free to write whatever opinion
> they have and others that don't agree with it or don't consider that as
> something that resolves opened issues have also the right to contradict
> them.
>
> Fernando
>
> On 15/01/2021 17:21, Mike Burns wrote:
>
> Count me as embarrassed at the treatment of new posters on this list.
>
> Demeaned as recipients of payments for expressing their opinion, mocked
> for offering support without establishing bona fides.
>
> Dismissed because no reasoning is provided in support of their opinions.
>
> And finally attacked when they do.
>
>
>
> I hope the Trustees who will make this decision are aware of the
> importance of bottom-up, stakeholder governance, and realize these numerous
> expressions of support might be the first steps of these posters towards
> the kind of ongoing community participation we claim to value.
>
>
>
> Aren’t we all sick of the same voices?
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Mike Burns
>
>
>
> PS ARIN does not require resource holders use NAT, much less CGNAT.
>
> If you feel that should be a requirement, write a policy proposal.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ARIN-PPML 
>  *On Behalf Of *Robert Clarke
> *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2021 2:55 PM
> *To:* Jay Wendelin  
> *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
>
>
>
> Isn't this like saying "please give me free land so I can lease 

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

[Elvis Daniel Velea]

On 1/15/21 1:17 PM, Mike Burns wrote:



[...]


The Trustees have heard the arguments by now I am sure, and the 
support of the petition must be at or near the required 25 by now.


Unsolicited advice to new posters on how to run their networks and the 
need to use IPv6 are a waste of time, and are the correct way to keep 
the community tiny.


Regards,
Mike

PS If we have reached 25 petitions, please let us know. Somebody must 
be counting.



if not, count my +1 as well.

cheers,

elvis

___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

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

[Mike Burns]

Hi Fernando,

 

You keep saying this proposal doesn’t have community support and that is plain 
wrong, and getting more wrong daily.

It had and has community support, and it had majority AC support, just not 
supermajority.

So your arguments about lack of community support are not applicable, as 
apparently this decision came down to a few people on the AC at the time.

 

Maybe your default position for new posters is they probably visited a website 
for free beers and should be grilled.

Have  you seen the signatures and job titles being posted, even including ARIN 
membership numbers?

Do you have an ARIN membership number? 

Can we see your papers to ensure  you aren’t getting free beer and can be 
“dismissed”?

Do you see how objectionable this stuff is, and where it can lead?

 

None of that matters, as we are not judging this policy by motivations nor by 
popularity.

But the petition process demands numbers, pure numbers, and postings in support 
of the petition don’t require the same depth of arguments in support of the 
underlying proposal anyway, as you yourself pointed out! The process virtually 
requires the sort of postings we are seeing, or does the number 25 require 25 
separate reasoning discussions?

 

The Trustees have heard the arguments by now I am sure, and the support of the 
petition must be at or near the required 25 by now.

Unsolicited advice to new posters on how to run their networks and the need to 
use IPv6 are a waste of time, and are the correct way to keep the community 
tiny.

 

Regards,
Mike

PS If we have reached 25 petitions, please let us know. Somebody must be 
counting. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: ARIN-PPML  On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 3:34 PM
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

 

Yes we are, mainly when there are tentatives to push something that hasn't been 
broadly accepted by the community as many other proposals that didn't progress.

If a proposal doesn't reach consensus is probably because it didn't resolve all 
the possible issues it had during the discussion period regardless of how many 
people supported it.

And by the way: there are absolutely nothing wrong in dismissing supports when 
they have no substantial justifications to contribute to resolve the opened 
issues. That's what is evaluated by the AC.
Otherwise we may end up having supports to proposals "because once the person 
visited the author's company and they give free beers to visitors".

Process keep being bottom-up, everyone is free to write whatever opinion they 
have and others that don't agree with it or don't consider that as something 
that resolves opened issues have also the right to contradict them. 

Fernando

On 15/01/2021 17:21, Mike Burns wrote:

Count me as embarrassed at the treatment of new posters on this list.

Demeaned as recipients of payments for expressing their opinion, mocked for 
offering support without establishing bona fides.

Dismissed because no reasoning is provided in support of their opinions.

And finally attacked when they do.

 

I hope the Trustees who will make this decision are aware of the importance of 
bottom-up, stakeholder governance, and realize these numerous expressions of 
support might be the first steps of these posters towards the kind of ongoing 
community participation we claim to value. 

 

Aren’t we all sick of the same voices?

 

Regards,
Mike Burns

 

PS ARIN does not require resource holders use NAT, much less CGNAT. 

If you feel that should be a requirement, write a policy proposal.

 

 

 

 

From: ARIN-PPML   
 On Behalf Of Robert Clarke
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 2:55 PM
To: Jay Wendelin   
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

 

Isn't this like saying "please give me free land so I can lease it onto schools 
and other noble public institutions?" 

 

I don't feel like this argument has weight nor does your business take priority 
over the actual non profit businesses that won't get allocations because of 
this policy.

 

Regards,

 

Robert






On Jan 15, 2021, at 8:29 AM, Jay Wendelin mailto:j...@poweredbystl.com> > wrote:

 

I support this petition, I have many Public School Clients that rely on their 
ISP’s to manage and offer IP address. 

 





___
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 

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

[Fernando Frediani]

Yes we are, mainly when there are tentatives to push something that 
hasn't been broadly accepted by the community as many other proposals 
that didn't progress.


If a proposal doesn't reach consensus is probably because it didn't 
resolve all the possible issues it had during the discussion period 
regardless of how many people supported it.


And by the way: there are absolutely nothing wrong in dismissing 
supports when they have no substantial justifications to contribute to 
resolve the opened issues. That's what is evaluated by the AC.
Otherwise we may end up having supports to proposals "because once the 
person visited the author's company and they give free beers to visitors".


Process keep being bottom-up, everyone is free to write whatever opinion 
they have and others that don't agree with it or don't consider that as 
something that resolves opened issues have also the right to contradict 
them.


Fernando

On 15/01/2021 17:21, Mike Burns wrote:


Count me as embarrassed at the treatment of new posters on this list.

Demeaned as recipients of payments for expressing their opinion, 
mocked for offering support without establishing bona fides.


Dismissed because no reasoning is provided in support of their opinions.

And finally attacked when they do.

I hope the Trustees who will make this decision are aware of the 
importance of bottom-up, stakeholder governance, and realize these 
numerous expressions of support might be the first steps of these 
posters towards the kind of ongoing community participation we claim 
to value.


Aren’t we all sick of the same voices?

Regards,
Mike Burns

PS ARIN does not require resource holders use NAT, much less CGNAT.

If you feel that should be a requirement, write a policy proposal.

*From:* ARIN-PPML  *On Behalf Of *Robert 
Clarke

*Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2021 2:55 PM
*To:* Jay Wendelin 
*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


Isn't this like saying "please give me free land so I can lease it 
onto schools and other noble public institutions?"


I don't feel like this argument has weight nor does your business take 
priority over the actual non profit businesses that won't get 
allocations because of this policy.


Regards,

Robert



On Jan 15, 2021, at 8:29 AM, Jay Wendelin mailto:j...@poweredbystl.com>> wrote:

I support this petition, I have many Public School Clients that
rely on their ISP’s to manage and offer IP address.


___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

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

[Mike Burns]

Count me as embarrassed at the treatment of new posters on this list.

Demeaned as recipients of payments for expressing their opinion, mocked for 
offering support without establishing bona fides.

Dismissed because no reasoning is provided in support of their opinions.

And finally attacked when they do.

 

I hope the Trustees who will make this decision are aware of the importance of 
bottom-up, stakeholder governance, and realize these numerous expressions of 
support might be the first steps of these posters towards the kind of ongoing 
community participation we claim to value. 

 

Aren’t we all sick of the same voices?

 

Regards,
Mike Burns

 

PS ARIN does not require resource holders use NAT, much less CGNAT. 

If you feel that should be a requirement, write a policy proposal.

 

 

 

 

From: ARIN-PPML  On Behalf Of Robert Clarke
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 2:55 PM
To: Jay Wendelin 
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

 

Isn't this like saying "please give me free land so I can lease it onto schools 
and other noble public institutions?" 

 

I don't feel like this argument has weight nor does your business take priority 
over the actual non profit businesses that won't get allocations because of 
this policy.

 

Regards,

 

Robert





On Jan 15, 2021, at 8:29 AM, Jay Wendelin mailto:j...@poweredbystl.com> > wrote:

 

I support this petition, I have many Public School Clients that rely on their 
ISP’s to manage and offer IP address. 

 

___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

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

[Robert Clarke]

Isn't this like saying "please give me free land so I can lease it onto schools 
and other noble public institutions?" 

I don't feel like this argument has weight nor does your business take priority 
over the actual non profit businesses that won't get allocations because of 
this policy.

Regards,

Robert

> On Jan 15, 2021, at 8:29 AM, Jay Wendelin  wrote:
> 
> I support this petition, I have many Public School Clients that rely on their 
> ISP’s to manage and offer IP address. 

___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

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

[Mark Kiwiet]

I don't deny that there is

- A big problem and IPv6 is the future
- We really ARE running out of public IPv4 numbers

But I think the marketplace will sort it out. When IPv4 becomes more and
more expensive - all of those wasted IPv4s will find a market.

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 1:07 PM Fernando Frediani 
wrote:

> I am be wrong, but sometimes I feel that some people either don't
> understand the issue of IPv4 exhaustion and keep believing everything will
> always be sorted out. Even worst, some seem to believe that if they have a
> noble justification ARIN will keep issuing them with more IPv4 and all
> that's necessary for that is a policy in place.
>
> Other seems to go in the direction of "I support it because my supplier
> (or customer) needs it in order that I can keep doing business with him" -
> forgetting that policies are not made to fulfill individual or fewer
> business needs among the totality of members that use those limited
> resources.
>
> I do understand the reasoning of some that mentioned that point about
> being removed from the list, however that was not done on propose against
> those individual institutions but given the circumstances and in order to
> benefit the majority of existing and new members in a more fair possible
> way.
>
> Regards
> Fernando
> On 15/01/2021 15:56, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote:
>
> All major operating systems and major brands of networking gear have IPv6
> enabled.  In fact, the latest windows server networking requires IPv6, and
> features will fail if you were to turn IPv6 off.
>
> I understand good designs can be done with IPv4 with little or no
> configuration.  In fact the CPE of most major ISP's today have BOTH IPv4
> dhcp blocks preconfigured, as well as assignment of IPv6 to all attached
> network devices by SLAAC and/or DHCPv6, leaving nearly no configuration to
> set up a single node network.
>
> Thus, if setting up a new network, it actually takes MORE work to get rid
> of IPv6 to form an IPv4 only network, rather than simply using the
> preconfigured setup which is dual stack.
>
> There are already nodes on the internet that are IPv6 ONLY. This will
> become more common as time goes on.  Not going with the default dual stack
> setup will cut your users from access to these services.  Eventually we
> will reach a tipping point, after which IPv4 services will start to
> disappear. Also, the devices do not have to do NAT for IPv6, reducing the
> load on routers.  In todays world, turning on IPv6 will result in more than
> half of the traffic routing via IPv6 bypassing the NAT. It also future
> proofs your network.
>
> Albert Erdmann
> Network Administrator
> Paradise On Line Inc.
>
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2021, Mark Kiwiet wrote:
>
> Inside/Private network space will probably always be IPv4.   I don't
> understand why you would deal with IPv6 on the inside - you have the entire
> freaking
> class A of 10.0.0.0/8 to design around - and make beautiful designs as
> well.
>
> Unless you're running a NOC or a Web Server Farm - you really don't need
> more than 1 Public IP address for even 500+ private surfing endpoints.
>  Outside of
> standard ports like TCP/25 - you can overload a single IP address with
> hundreds of high random ports.
>
> Right now - the biggest public IPv4 issue is waste.   There are tons of
> public IPv4's that are not used because they are part of an overallocated
> customer
> block.
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 10:51 AM 
>  wrote:
>   What expensive technology are you talking about?  Windows has had
> IPv6
>   since Windows 2000.  Ditto with Apple or Chromebooks or any other
> tech
>   that is commonly used in schools.
>
>   Use of RFC1918 Ipv4 addresses is quite common in every school I have
> ever
>   dealt with. Even at the university level, it is very uncommon to
> assign
>   workstations to public IPv4 addresses, and some form of NAT is used
> for
>   IPv4 access via common public addresses with or without a proxy.
>
>   Albert Erdmann
>   Network Administrator
>   Paradise On Line Inc.
>
>   On Fri, 15 Jan 2021, Jay Wendelin wrote:
>
>   >
>   > You would have to ask the ISP’s themselves.  My Schools will not
> want to be involved at all nor will we want to implement new and expensive
>   technologies for
>   > ip6.
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > cidimage001.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
>   >
>   > Jay Wendelin
>   >
>   > Chief Information Officer
>   >
>   > Cell: 309-657-5303
>   >
>   > j...@poweredbystl.com
>   >
>   > cidimage002.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
> cidimage003.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0 cidimage004.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > From: Fernando Frediani 
> 
>   > Date: Friday, January 15, 2021 at 10:36 AM
>   > To: Jay Wendelin  
>   > Cc: arin-ppml  
>   > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering
> of 

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

[scott]

I am supposing then that there are no STEM programs at the referenced 
schools, or at least no networking track?  A school district is an entity 
that is generally of large enough size to benefit from having its own AS 
and address block to start with, and stable enough to act as backbone in 
many instances.


On Fri, 15 Jan 2021, Jay Wendelin wrote:



You would have to ask the ISP’s themselves.  My Schools will not want to be
involved at all nor will we want to implement new and expensive technologies
for ip6.

 

 

cidimage001.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0

Jay Wendelin

Chief Information Officer

Cell: 309-657-5303

j...@poweredbystl.com

cidimage002.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0 cidimage003.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
cidimage004.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0

 

 

From: Fernando Frediani 
Date: Friday, January 15, 2021 at 10:36 AM
To: Jay Wendelin 
Cc: arin-ppml 
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of
Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16

WARNING: This message originated from outside of the organization. Please do
not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source of this
email and can ensure the content is safe.

 

Didn't these ISPs in 2021 not invest IPv6 deployment and good CGNAT
techniques and they rely only on keep getting more addresses from ARIN ?

 

Fernando

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021, 13:29 Jay Wendelin,  wrote:

  I support this petition, I have many Public School Clients that
  rely on their ISP’s to manage and offer IP address. 

   

  Jay Wendelin

  CIO

  STL/BTS

   

  cidimage001.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0

  Jay Wendelin

  Chief Information Officer

  Cell: 309-657-5303

  j...@poweredbystl.com

  cidimage002.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
  cidimage003.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
  cidimage004.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0

 

___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.


___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

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

[Fernando Frediani]

I am be wrong, but sometimes I feel that some people either don't 
understand the issue of IPv4 exhaustion and keep believing everything 
will always be sorted out. Even worst, some seem to believe that if they 
have a noble justification ARIN will keep issuing them with more IPv4 
and all that's necessary for that is a policy in place.


Other seems to go in the direction of "I support it because my supplier 
(or customer) needs it in order that I can keep doing business with him" 
- forgetting that policies are not made to fulfill individual or fewer 
business needs among the totality of members that use those limited 
resources.


I do understand the reasoning of some that mentioned that point about 
being removed from the list, however that was not done on propose 
against those individual institutions but given the circumstances and in 
order to benefit the majority of existing and new members in a more fair 
possible way.


Regards
Fernando

On 15/01/2021 15:56, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote:
All major operating systems and major brands of networking gear have 
IPv6 enabled.  In fact, the latest windows server networking requires 
IPv6, and features will fail if you were to turn IPv6 off.


I understand good designs can be done with IPv4 with little or no 
configuration.  In fact the CPE of most major ISP's today have BOTH 
IPv4 dhcp blocks preconfigured, as well as assignment of IPv6 to all 
attached network devices by SLAAC and/or DHCPv6, leaving nearly no 
configuration to set up a single node network.


Thus, if setting up a new network, it actually takes MORE work to get 
rid of IPv6 to form an IPv4 only network, rather than simply using the 
preconfigured setup which is dual stack.


There are already nodes on the internet that are IPv6 ONLY. This will 
become more common as time goes on.  Not going with the default dual 
stack setup will cut your users from access to these services.  
Eventually we will reach a tipping point, after which IPv4 services 
will start to disappear. Also, the devices do not have to do NAT for 
IPv6, reducing the load on routers.  In todays world, turning on IPv6 
will result in more than half of the traffic routing via IPv6 
bypassing the NAT. It also future proofs your network.


Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021, Mark Kiwiet wrote:

Inside/Private network space will probably always be IPv4.   I don't 
understand why you would deal with IPv6 on the inside - you have the 
entire freaking
class A of 10.0.0.0/8 to design around - and make beautiful designs 
as well.


Unless you're running a NOC or a Web Server Farm - you really don't 
need more than 1 Public IP address for even 500+ private surfing 
endpoints.   Outside of
standard ports like TCP/25 - you can overload a single IP address 
with hundreds of high random ports.


Right now - the biggest public IPv4 issue is waste.   There are tons 
of public IPv4's that are not used because they are part of an 
overallocated customer

block.

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 10:51 AM  wrote:
  What expensive technology are you talking about?  Windows has 
had IPv6
  since Windows 2000.  Ditto with Apple or Chromebooks or any 
other tech

  that is commonly used in schools.

  Use of RFC1918 Ipv4 addresses is quite common in every school I 
have ever
  dealt with. Even at the university level, it is very uncommon 
to assign
  workstations to public IPv4 addresses, and some form of NAT is 
used for

  IPv4 access via common public addresses with or without a proxy.

  Albert Erdmann
  Network Administrator
  Paradise On Line Inc.

  On Fri, 15 Jan 2021, Jay Wendelin wrote:

  >
  > You would have to ask the ISP’s themselves.  My Schools will 
not want to be involved at all nor will we want to implement new and 
expensive

  technologies for
  > ip6.
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > cidimage001.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
  >
  > Jay Wendelin
  >
  > Chief Information Officer
  >
  > Cell: 309-657-5303
  >
  > j...@poweredbystl.com
  >
  > cidimage002.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0 
cidimage003.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0 cidimage004.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0

  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > From: Fernando Frediani 
  > Date: Friday, January 15, 2021 at 10:36 AM
  > To: Jay Wendelin 
  > Cc: arin-ppml 
  > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: 
Grandfathering of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by 
Implementation of ARIN-2019-16

  >
  > WARNING: This message originated from outside of the 
organization. Please do not click links or open attachments unless 
you recognize the

  source of this
  > email and can ensure the content is safe.
  >
  >
  >
  > Didn't these ISPs in 2021 not invest IPv6 deployment and good 
CGNAT techniques and they rely only on keep getting more addresses 
from ARIN ?

  >
  >
  >
   

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

[hostmaster]

All major operating systems and major brands of networking gear have IPv6 
enabled.  In fact, the latest windows server networking requires IPv6, and 
features will fail if you were to turn IPv6 off.


I understand good designs can be done with IPv4 with little or no 
configuration.  In fact the CPE of most major ISP's today have BOTH IPv4 
dhcp blocks preconfigured, as well as assignment of IPv6 to all attached 
network devices by SLAAC and/or DHCPv6, leaving nearly no configuration to 
set up a single node network.


Thus, if setting up a new network, it actually takes MORE work to get rid 
of IPv6 to form an IPv4 only network, rather than simply using the 
preconfigured setup which is dual stack.


There are already nodes on the internet that are IPv6 ONLY. This will 
become more common as time goes on.  Not going with the default dual stack 
setup will cut your users from access to these services.  Eventually we 
will reach a tipping point, after which IPv4 services will start to 
disappear. Also, the devices do not have to do NAT for IPv6, reducing the 
load on routers.  In todays world, turning on IPv6 will result in more 
than half of the traffic routing via IPv6 bypassing the NAT. It also 
future proofs your network.


Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021, Mark Kiwiet wrote:


Inside/Private network space will probably always be IPv4.   I don't understand 
why you would deal with IPv6 on the inside - you have the entire freaking
class A of 10.0.0.0/8 to design around - and make beautiful designs as well.

Unless you're running a NOC or a Web Server Farm - you really don't need more 
than 1 Public IP address for even 500+ private surfing endpoints.   Outside of
standard ports like TCP/25 - you can overload a single IP address with hundreds 
of high random ports.

Right now - the biggest public IPv4 issue is waste.   There are tons of public 
IPv4's that are not used because they are part of an overallocated customer
block.   

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 10:51 AM  wrote:
  What expensive technology are you talking about?  Windows has had IPv6
  since Windows 2000.  Ditto with Apple or Chromebooks or any other tech
  that is commonly used in schools.

  Use of RFC1918 Ipv4 addresses is quite common in every school I have ever
  dealt with. Even at the university level, it is very uncommon to assign
  workstations to public IPv4 addresses, and some form of NAT is used for
  IPv4 access via common public addresses with or without a proxy.

  Albert Erdmann
  Network Administrator
  Paradise On Line Inc.

  On Fri, 15 Jan 2021, Jay Wendelin wrote:

  >
  > You would have to ask the ISP’s themselves.  My Schools will not want 
to be involved at all nor will we want to implement new and expensive
  technologies for
  > ip6.
  >
  >  
  >
  >  
  >
  > cidimage001.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
  >
  > Jay Wendelin
  >
  > Chief Information Officer
  >
  > Cell: 309-657-5303
  >
  > j...@poweredbystl.com
  >
  > cidimage002.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0 cidimage003.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0 
cidimage004.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
  >
  >  
  >
  >  
  >
  > From: Fernando Frediani 
  > Date: Friday, January 15, 2021 at 10:36 AM
  > To: Jay Wendelin 
  > Cc: arin-ppml 
  > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of 
Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16
  >
  > WARNING: This message originated from outside of the organization. 
Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
  source of this
  > email and can ensure the content is safe.
  >
  >  
  >
  > Didn't these ISPs in 2021 not invest IPv6 deployment and good CGNAT 
techniques and they rely only on keep getting more addresses from ARIN ?
  >
  >  
  >
  > Fernando
  >
  > On Fri, 15 Jan 2021, 13:29 Jay Wendelin,  wrote:
  >
  >       I support this petition, I have many Public School Clients that 
rely on their ISP’s to manage and offer IP address. 
  >
  >        
  >
  >       Jay Wendelin
  >
  >       CIO
  >
  >       STL/BTS
  >
  >        
  >
  >       cidimage001.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
  >
  >       Jay Wendelin
  >
  >       Chief Information Officer
  >
  >       Cell: 309-657-5303
  >
  >       j...@poweredbystl.com
  >
  >       cidimage002.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0 
cidimage003.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0 cidimage004.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
  >
  >  
  >
  > ___
  > 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:
  > 

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

[Mark Kiwiet]

Inside/Private network space will probably always be IPv4.   I don't
understand why you would deal with IPv6 on the inside - you have the entire
freaking class A of 10.0.0.0/8 to design around - and make beautiful
designs as well.

Unless you're running a NOC or a Web Server Farm - you really don't need
more than 1 Public IP address for even 500+ private surfing endpoints.
 Outside of standard ports like TCP/25 - you can overload a single IP
address with hundreds of high random ports.

Right now - the biggest public IPv4 issue is waste.   There are tons of
public IPv4's that are not used because they are part of an overallocated
customer block.

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 10:51 AM  wrote:

> What expensive technology are you talking about?  Windows has had IPv6
> since Windows 2000.  Ditto with Apple or Chromebooks or any other tech
> that is commonly used in schools.
>
> Use of RFC1918 Ipv4 addresses is quite common in every school I have ever
> dealt with. Even at the university level, it is very uncommon to assign
> workstations to public IPv4 addresses, and some form of NAT is used for
> IPv4 access via common public addresses with or without a proxy.
>
> Albert Erdmann
> Network Administrator
> Paradise On Line Inc.
>
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2021, Jay Wendelin wrote:
>
> >
> > You would have to ask the ISP’s themselves.  My Schools will not want to
> be involved at all nor will we want to implement new and expensive
> technologies for
> > ip6.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > cidimage001.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
> >
> > Jay Wendelin
> >
> > Chief Information Officer
> >
> > Cell: 309-657-5303
> >
> > j...@poweredbystl.com
> >
> > cidimage002.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0 cidimage003.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
> cidimage004.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Fernando Frediani 
> > Date: Friday, January 15, 2021 at 10:36 AM
> > To: Jay Wendelin 
> > Cc: arin-ppml 
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of
> Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16
> >
> > WARNING: This message originated from outside of the organization.
> Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
> source of this
> > email and can ensure the content is safe.
> >
> >
> >
> > Didn't these ISPs in 2021 not invest IPv6 deployment and good CGNAT
> techniques and they rely only on keep getting more addresses from ARIN ?
> >
> >
> >
> > Fernando
> >
> > On Fri, 15 Jan 2021, 13:29 Jay Wendelin,  wrote:
> >
> >   I support this petition, I have many Public School Clients that
> rely on their ISP’s to manage and offer IP address.
> >
> >
> >
> >   Jay Wendelin
> >
> >   CIO
> >
> >   STL/BTS
> >
> >
> >
> >   cidimage001.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
> >
> >   Jay Wendelin
> >
> >   Chief Information Officer
> >
> >   Cell: 309-657-5303
> >
> >   j...@poweredbystl.com
> >
> >   cidimage002.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
> cidimage003.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0 cidimage004.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > ARIN-PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >
> >
> >___
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
>


--
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

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

[hostmaster]

What expensive technology are you talking about?  Windows has had IPv6 
since Windows 2000.  Ditto with Apple or Chromebooks or any other tech 
that is commonly used in schools.


Use of RFC1918 Ipv4 addresses is quite common in every school I have ever 
dealt with. Even at the university level, it is very uncommon to assign 
workstations to public IPv4 addresses, and some form of NAT is used for 
IPv4 access via common public addresses with or without a proxy.


Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021, Jay Wendelin wrote:



You would have to ask the ISP’s themselves.  My Schools will not want to be 
involved at all nor will we want to implement new and expensive technologies for
ip6.

 

 

cidimage001.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0

Jay Wendelin

Chief Information Officer

Cell: 309-657-5303

j...@poweredbystl.com

cidimage002.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0 cidimage003.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0 
cidimage004.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0

 

 

From: Fernando Frediani 
Date: Friday, January 15, 2021 at 10:36 AM
To: Jay Wendelin 
Cc: arin-ppml 
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of 
Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16

WARNING: This message originated from outside of the organization. Please do 
not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source of this
email and can ensure the content is safe.

 

Didn't these ISPs in 2021 not invest IPv6 deployment and good CGNAT techniques 
and they rely only on keep getting more addresses from ARIN ?

 

Fernando

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021, 13:29 Jay Wendelin,  wrote:

  I support this petition, I have many Public School Clients that rely on 
their ISP’s to manage and offer IP address. 

   

  Jay Wendelin

  CIO

  STL/BTS

   

  cidimage001.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0

  Jay Wendelin

  Chief Information Officer

  Cell: 309-657-5303

  j...@poweredbystl.com

  cidimage002.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0 cidimage003.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0 
cidimage004.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0

 

___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.


___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

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

[Jay Wendelin]

You would have to ask the ISP’s themselves.  My Schools will not want to be 
involved at all nor will we want to implement new and expensive technologies 
for ip6.


[cidimage001.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0]
Jay Wendelin
Chief Information Officer
Cell: 309-657-5303
j...@poweredbystl.com
[cidimage002.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0][cidimage003.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0][cidimage004.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0]


From: Fernando Frediani 
Date: Friday, January 15, 2021 at 10:36 AM
To: Jay Wendelin 
Cc: arin-ppml 
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of 
Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16
WARNING: This message originated from outside of the organization. Please do 
not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source of this 
email and can ensure the content is safe.

Didn't these ISPs in 2021 not invest IPv6 deployment and good CGNAT techniques 
and they rely only on keep getting more addresses from ARIN ?

Fernando
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021, 13:29 Jay Wendelin, 
mailto:j...@poweredbystl.com>> wrote:
I support this petition, I have many Public School Clients that rely on their 
ISP’s to manage and offer IP address.

Jay Wendelin
CIO
STL/BTS

[cidimage001.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0]
Jay Wendelin
Chief Information Officer
Cell: 309-657-5303
j...@poweredbystl.com
[cidimage002.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0][cidimage003.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0][cidimage004.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0]

___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List 
(ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

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

[Fernando Frediani]

Didn't these ISPs in 2021 not invest IPv6 deployment and good CGNAT
techniques and they rely only on keep getting more addresses from ARIN ?

Fernando

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021, 13:29 Jay Wendelin,  wrote:

> I support this petition, I have many Public School Clients that rely on
> their ISP’s to manage and offer IP address.
>
>
>
> Jay Wendelin
>
> CIO
>
> STL/BTS
>
>
>
> [image: cidimage001.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0] 
>
> *Jay Wendelin*
>
> *Chief Information Officer*
>
> *Cell: *309-657-5303
>
> j...@poweredbystl.com
>
> [image: cidimage002.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0]
> [image:
> cidimage003.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0] [image:
> cidimage004.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0] 
>
>
> ___
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

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

[Zak Horn]

Metro Communications is in support of this policy.  Legitimate, non-broker 
backed firms were treated unfairly by the Implementation of 2019-16.  It makes 
more sense to implement policies on a go forward basis without impacting those 
who played by the rules and are in need of the requested space.  There has to 
be a better way to identify shell entities requesting space for re-sale by 
brokers versus service providers who are serving real customers and will make 
immediate use of the assignment.

Zak Horn


___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

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

[Tom Pruitt]

I support this proposal.

Thanks,
Tom Pruitt
Network Engineer
Stratus Networks
(309)408-8704
[stratus_networks_logo_FINAL]
This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it are the property of Stratus 
Networks, Inc. and/or its affiliates, are confidential, and are intended solely 
for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e-mail is addressed. If 
you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe 
that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender at 
309-408-8704 and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other 
use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail 
is strictly prohibited

From: ARIN-PPML  On Behalf Of A N
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 10:31 AM
To: Isaiah Olson 
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


Hi all,

Alyssa and I (co-shepherds for this policy) have reviewed all of the comments. 
There are 18 comments in favour of the spirit of this policy, and 5 against.


Many of these comments express support for removing the restriction on total 
holdings for a grandfathered organization, because this was not a restriction 
when they were originally placed on the list.


As such, the amended proposal would look like this:


ARIN will restore organizations that were removed from the waitlist at the 
adoption of ARIN-2019-16 to their previous position (STRIKE THIS: if their 
total holdings of IPv4 address space amounts to a /18 or less.) The maximum 
size aggregate that a reinstated organization may qualify for is a /22.

All restored organizations extend their 2 year approval by [number of months 
between July 2019 and implementation of new policy]. Any requests met through a 
transfer will be considered fulfilled and removed from the waiting list.

Thoughts?

-Anita Nikolich

On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 4:09 PM Isaiah Olson 
mailto:isa...@olson-network.com>> wrote:
Hi all,

On behalf of my organization, I would also like to voice support for this 
policy. As much as I find some arguments against the policy compelling, namely 
that nobody is guaranteed to receive any space within any kind of time frame 
when using the waiting list, I think it’s pretty clear to the community that an 
error was made in moving the target out from underneath companies who had 
already been patiently waiting on the list in accordance with the requirements 
at the time they were added.

As far as implementation details, I absolutely believe that two of the most 
important measures to prevent fraud were the introduction of the /22 limit and 
the 60 month waiting period to transfer wait list issued space. Although we may 
have erred in retroactively removing orgs based on the new /20 limit for total 
space held, I think that the grandfathered orgs should be subject to the same 
treatment as the orgs who remained on the list after 2019-16 was implemented. 
Otherwise, I believe we would once again be creating a situation of unequal 
treatment for the orgs who had to reduce their request size to a /22 after the 
implementation of 2019-16, and were subject to the new 60 month waiting period 
upon issuance.

With regards to the proposed /18 limit, I do find that there is little to 
support this arbitrary boundary when the original waitlist policy specified no 
such condition. Since we are remedying a one time error, I think that we 
shouldn’t be too particular about which of the aggrieved parties are allowed to 
make use of that remedy. Although I personally believe that most organizations 
holding greater than a /18 could probably afford to obtain space in other ways, 
I think the duty of ARIN to be fair and impartial requires us to take a bit 
broader view. Asking an organization to take a smaller allocation, or wait 
longer to transfer allocated space, seems to me to be a much less onerous 
retroactive application of new policy than drawing any boundary which results 
in complete ineligibility for some.

Isaiah Olson
Olson Tech, LLC
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List 
(ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

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

[Brandt, Jason via ARIN-PPML]

I am in support of this proposal.


Jason
Brandt
Senior Systems Engineer
Pearl Companies | 1200 E Glen Ave Peoria Heights, IL 61616
P: 309.679.0184 F: 309.688.5444 E: jason.bra...@pearlcompanies.com
www.pearlcompanies.com | Insurance - Technology - Automotive

PEARL COMPANIES CONFIDENTIALITY: This communication, including attachments, is 
for exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential 
or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, 
copying, disclosure, or distribution or the taking of any action in reliance 
upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended 
recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this communication 
and destroy all copies [v1.0.002].
From: ARIN-PPML  On Behalf Of A N
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 10:31
To: Isaiah Olson 
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


CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 
is safe.

Hi all,

Alyssa and I (co-shepherds for this policy) have reviewed all of the comments. 
There are 18 comments in favour of the spirit of this policy, and 5 against.


Many of these comments express support for removing the restriction on total 
holdings for a grandfathered organization, because this was not a restriction 
when they were originally placed on the list.


As such, the amended proposal would look like this:


ARIN will restore organizations that were removed from the waitlist at the 
adoption of ARIN-2019-16 to their previous position (STRIKE THIS: if their 
total holdings of IPv4 address space amounts to a /18 or less.) The maximum 
size aggregate that a reinstated organization may qualify for is a /22.

All restored organizations extend their 2 year approval by [number of months 
between July 2019 and implementation of new policy]. Any requests met through a 
transfer will be considered fulfilled and removed from the waiting list.

Thoughts?

-Anita Nikolich

On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 4:09 PM Isaiah Olson 
mailto:isa...@olson-network.com>> wrote:
Hi all,

On behalf of my organization, I would also like to voice support for this 
policy. As much as I find some arguments against the policy compelling, namely 
that nobody is guaranteed to receive any space within any kind of time frame 
when using the waiting list, I think it’s pretty clear to the community that an 
error was made in moving the target out from underneath companies who had 
already been patiently waiting on the list in accordance with the requirements 
at the time they were added.

As far as implementation details, I absolutely believe that two of the most 
important measures to prevent fraud were the introduction of the /22 limit and 
the 60 month waiting period to transfer wait list issued space. Although we may 
have erred in retroactively removing orgs based on the new /20 limit for total 
space held, I think that the grandfathered orgs should be subject to the same 
treatment as the orgs who remained on the list after 2019-16 was implemented. 
Otherwise, I believe we would once again be creating a situation of unequal 
treatment for the orgs who had to reduce their request size to a /22 after the 
implementation of 2019-16, and were subject to the new 60 month waiting period 
upon issuance.

With regards to the proposed /18 limit, I do find that there is little to 
support this arbitrary boundary when the original waitlist policy specified no 
such condition. Since we are remedying a one time error, I think that we 
shouldn’t be too particular about which of the aggrieved parties are allowed to 
make use of that remedy. Although I personally believe that most organizations 
holding greater than a /18 could probably afford to obtain space in other ways, 
I think the duty of ARIN to be fair and impartial requires us to take a bit 
broader view. Asking an organization to take a smaller allocation, or wait 
longer to transfer allocated space, seems to me to be a much less onerous 
retroactive application of new policy than drawing any boundary which results 
in complete ineligibility for some.

Isaiah Olson
Olson Tech, LLC
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List 
(ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

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

[A N]

Hi all,

Alyssa and I (co-shepherds for this policy) have reviewed all of the
comments. There are 18 comments in favour of the spirit of this policy, and
5 against.

Many of these comments express support for removing the restriction on
total holdings for a grandfathered organization, because this was not a
restriction when they were originally placed on the list.

As such, the amended proposal would look like this:

ARIN will restore organizations that were removed from the waitlist at the
adoption of ARIN-2019-16 to their previous position (STRIKE THIS: if their
total holdings of IPv4 address space amounts to a /18 or less.) The maximum
size aggregate that a reinstated organization may qualify for is a /22.

All restored organizations extend their 2 year approval by [number of
months between July 2019 and implementation of new policy]. Any requests
met through a transfer will be considered fulfilled and removed from the
waiting list.

Thoughts?

-Anita Nikolich

On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 4:09 PM Isaiah Olson 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
>
> On behalf of my organization, I would also like to voice support for this
> policy. As much as I find some arguments against the policy compelling,
> namely that nobody is guaranteed to receive any space within any kind of
> time frame when using the waiting list, I think it’s pretty clear to the
> community that an error was made in moving the target out from underneath
> companies who had already been patiently waiting on the list in accordance
> with the requirements at the time they were added.
>
>
>
> As far as implementation details, I absolutely believe that two of the
> most important measures to prevent fraud were the introduction of the /22
> limit and the 60 month waiting period to transfer wait list issued space.
> Although we may have erred in retroactively removing orgs based on the new
> /20 limit for total space held, I think that the grandfathered orgs should
> be subject to the same treatment as the orgs who remained on the list after
> 2019-16 was implemented. Otherwise, I believe we would once again be
> creating a situation of unequal treatment for the orgs who had to reduce
> their request size to a /22 after the implementation of 2019-16, and were
> subject to the new 60 month waiting period upon issuance.
>
>
>
> With regards to the proposed /18 limit, I do find that there is little to
> support this arbitrary boundary when the original waitlist policy specified
> no such condition. Since we are remedying a one time error, I think that we
> shouldn’t be too particular about which of the aggrieved parties are
> allowed to make use of that remedy. Although I personally believe that most
> organizations holding greater than a /18 could probably afford to obtain
> space in other ways, I think the duty of ARIN to be fair and impartial
> requires us to take a bit broader view. Asking an organization to take a
> smaller allocation, or wait longer to transfer allocated space, seems to me
> to be a much less onerous retroactive application of new policy than
> drawing any boundary which results in complete ineligibility for some.
>
>
>
> Isaiah Olson
>
> Olson Tech, LLC
> ___
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

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

[Brian Jones]

I +1 Tom's input below. I think the organizations that were on the waiting
list before should receive the same benefits and restrictions they were
given in the original vetting process  when they were placed onto the
waiting list.

I also +1 Owen's comment about yes IPv4 is scarce but that's not the
problem. IMHO - IPv6 should be the first consideration of anyone looking to
implement networks now. As long as "we" keep placing high value on IPv4
addresses "we" are prolonging the adoption of IPv6, the technology of today
and the future.
—
Brian

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 9:26 AM Tom Pruitt  wrote:

> I support the draft policy as written, which addresses grandfathering
> organizations
>
>
>
> Views 2, 3, and 4 seem to be addressing the list as a whole, which I would
> also support, but this draft policy was brought up to address the situation
> that happened when 2019-16 was implemented and dropped some organizations
> from the wait list.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tom Pruitt
>
> Network Engineer
>
> Stratus Networks
>
> [image: stratus_networks_logo_FINAL]
>
> This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it are the property of Stratus
> Networks, Inc. and/or its affiliates, are confidential, and are intended
> solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e-mail is
> addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have
> reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please
> notify the sender at 309-408-8704 and delete this message immediately from
> your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding,
> printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited
>
>
>
> *From:* ARIN-PPML  *On Behalf Of *A N
> *Sent:* Friday, July 17, 2020 7:56 AM
> *To:* ARIN-PPML List 
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of
> Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16
>
>
>
> Hi all -
>
> Alyssa and I are shepherding this on behalf of the AC. Given the varying,
> thoughtful opinions, I'd like to prod to see if anyone else has thoughts
> one way or the other on this draft.
>
>
>
> Anita
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 6:26 PM Alyssa Moore 
> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> There was some great discussion of this policy proposal at ARIN45. We hear
> a wide range of views including:
>
>1. Don't grandfather organizations. The new waitlist policy is sound.
>2. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 should be
>eligible for their original request size (even if it exceeds the new limit
>of a /22).
>3. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 should
>remain eligible if their holdings exceed a /20 OR a /18. The draft policy
>under discussion specifies a /18 total holdings for grandfathered orgs,
>while the current waitlist policy (2019-16) specifies a /20.
>4. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 should be
>eligible regardless of their total holdings because that was not a
>restriction of the policy under which they originally qualified for the
>waitlist.
>
>  There was general support to continue finessing this draft. If you have
> views on the above noted parameters, please make them known here.
>
>
>
> For reference:
>
> *Old waitlist policy*
>
>1. Requester specifies smallest block they'd be willing to accept,
>equal to or larger than the applicable minimum size specified elsewhere in
>ARIN policy.
>2. Did not place a limit on the total existing IP address holdings of
>a party eligible for the waitlist.
>3. Made resources issued from the waitlist ineligible for transfer
>until after a period of 12 months.
>
> *New Waitlist Policy*
>
>1. Limits the size of block ARIN can issue on the waitlist to a /22.
>2. Places a limit on the total existing IP address holdings of a party
>eligible for the waitlist at a /20 or less.
>3. Makes resources issued from the waitlist ineligible for transfer
>until after a period of 60 months.
>
>
> Best,
> Alyssa
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 3:35 PM David Farmer  wrote:
>
> I support this policy and believe the policy development process is the
> proper place to handle this issue. However, this policy seems to be
> implementable as a one-time policy directive to ARIN Staff. Once
> implemented, by putting the effected organizations back on the waiting
> list, it seems unnecessary to memorialized the text in the NRPM, it would
> immediately become extraneous and potentially confusing to future readers
> of the NRPM.
>
>
>
> Therefore, I would like to recommend the Policy Statement not be added to
> the NRPM upon its implementation. I believe this to be consistent with the
> intent of the policy.  Otherwise, does ARIN Staff have procedural advice on
> how best to handle what seems like a one-time directive?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:21 PM ARIN  wrote:
>
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of Organizations Removed from

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

[Owen DeLong]

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 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:
>>>   Hi folks,
>>> 
>>>   There was some great discussion of this policy proposal at ARIN45.
>> We hear a wide range of views including:
>>>1. Don't grandfather organizations. The new waitlist policy is
>> sound.
>>>2. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16
>>> should be
>> eligible for their original request size (even if it exceeds the new limit
>>>   of a /22).
>>>3. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16
>>> should
>> remain eligible if their holdings exceed a /20 OR a /18. The draft policy
>>>   under discussion specifies a /18 total holdings for
>> grandfathered orgs, while the current waitlist policy (2019-16) specifies a 
>> /20.
>>>4. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16
>>> should be
>> eligible regardless of their total holdings because that was not a
>>>   restriction of the policy under which they originally
>>> qualified
>> for the waitlist.
>>>There was general support to continue finessing this draft. If
>>> you
>> have views on the above noted parameters, please make them known here.
>>> For reference:
>>> 
>>> Old waitlist policy
>>>  1. Requester specifies smallest block they'd be willing to accept,
>>> equal
>> to or larger than the applicable minimum size specified elsewhere in ARIN
>>> policy.
>>>  2. Did not place a limit on the total existing IP address holdings of
>>> a
>> party eligible for the waitlist.
>>>  3. Made resources issued from the waitlist ineligible for transfer
>>> until after a period of 12 months. New Waitlist Policy  1. Limits the
>>> size of block ARIN can issue on 

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

[Mike Burns]

Hi Fernando,

What is the justification to favor small holders over large holders?
As you say, scarcity affects all equally.
The bending of policy occurred behind the scenes in an Advisory Council meeting.

Regards,
Mike



-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML  On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 12:01 PM
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

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:
>>Hi folks,
>>
>>There was some great discussion of this policy proposal at ARIN45.
> We hear a wide range of views including:
>> 1. Don't grandfather organizations. The new waitlist policy 
>> is
> sound.
>> 2. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 
>> should be
> eligible for their original request size (even if it exceeds the new 
> limit
>>of a /22).
>> 3. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 
>> should
> remain eligible if their holdings exceed a /20 OR a /18. The draft 
> policy
>>under discussion specifies a /18 total holdings for
> grandfathered orgs, while the current waitlist policy (2019-16) specifies a 
> /20.
>> 4. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 
>> should be
> eligible regardless of their total holdings because that was not a
>>restriction of the policy under which they originally 
>> qualified
> for the waitlist.
>> There was general support to continue finessing this draft. 
>> If you
> have views on the above noted parameters, please make them known here.
>> For reference:
>>
>> Old waitlist policy
>>   1. Requester specifies smallest block they'd be willing to accept, 
>> equal
> to or larger than the applicable minimum size specified elsewhere in 
> ARIN
>>  policy.
>>   2. Did not place a limit on the total existing IP address holdings 
>> of a
> party eligible for the waitlist.
>>   3. Made resources issued from the waitlist ineligible for transfer 
>> until after a period of 12 months. New Waitlist Policy  1. Limits the 
>> size of block ARIN can issue on the 

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

[Fernando Frediani]

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:
   Hi folks,

   There was some great discussion of this policy proposal at ARIN45.

We hear a wide range of views including:

1. Don't grandfather organizations. The new waitlist policy is

sound.

2. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16
should be

eligible for their original request size (even if it exceeds the new limit

   of a /22).
3. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16
should

remain eligible if their holdings exceed a /20 OR a /18. The draft policy

   under discussion specifies a /18 total holdings for

grandfathered orgs, while the current waitlist policy (2019-16) specifies a /20.

4. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16
should be

eligible regardless of their total holdings because that was not a

   restriction of the policy under which they originally
qualified

for the waitlist.

    There was general support to continue finessing this draft. If
you

have views on the above noted parameters, please make them known here.

For reference:

Old waitlist policy
  1. Requester specifies smallest block they'd be willing to accept,
equal

to or larger than the applicable minimum size specified elsewhere in ARIN

 policy.
  2. Did not place a limit on the total existing IP address holdings of
a

party eligible for the waitlist.

  3. Made resources issued from the waitlist ineligible for transfer
until after a period of 12 months. New Waitlist Policy  1. Limits the
size of block ARIN can issue on the waitlist to a /22.
  2. Places a limit on the total existing IP address holdings of a
party

eligible for the waitlist at a /20 or less.

  3. Makes resources issued from the waitlist ineligible for transfer
until after a period of 60 months.

Best,
Alyssa

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 3:35 PM David Farmer  wrote:
   I support this policy and believe the policy development process
is

the proper place to handle this issue. However, this policy seems to

   be implementable as a one-time policy directive to ARIN Staff.
Once

implemented, by putting the effected organizations back on the waiting

   list, it seems unnecessary to memorialized the text in the NRPM,
it

would immediately become extraneous and potentially 

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

[Steven Ryerse via ARIN-PPML]

+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:
>   Hi folks,
>
>   There was some great discussion of this policy proposal at ARIN45.
We hear a wide range of views including:
>1. Don't grandfather organizations. The new waitlist policy is
sound. 
>2. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 
> should be
eligible for their original request size (even if it exceeds the new limit
>   of a /22). 
>3. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 
> should
remain eligible if their holdings exceed a /20 OR a /18. The draft policy
>   under discussion specifies a /18 total holdings for
grandfathered orgs, while the current waitlist policy (2019-16) specifies a /20.
>4. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 
> should be
eligible regardless of their total holdings because that was not a
>   restriction of the policy under which they originally 
> qualified
for the waitlist. 
>    There was general support to continue finessing this draft. If 
> you
have views on the above noted parameters, please make them known here.
> 
> For reference:
> 
> Old waitlist policy
>  1. Requester specifies smallest block they'd be willing to accept, 
> equal
to or larger than the applicable minimum size specified elsewhere in ARIN
> policy.
>  2. Did not place a limit on the total existing IP address holdings of 
> a
party eligible for the waitlist.
>  3. Made resources issued from the waitlist ineligible for transfer 
> until after a period of 12 months. New Waitlist Policy  1. Limits the 
> size of block ARIN can issue on the waitlist to a /22.
>  2. Places a limit on the total existing IP address holdings of a 
> party
eligible for the waitlist at a /20 or less.
>  3. Makes resources issued from the waitlist ineligible for transfer 
> until after a period of 60 months.
> 
> Best,
> Alyssa
> 
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 3:35 PM David Farmer  wrote:
>   I support this policy and believe the policy development process 
> is
the proper place to handle this issue. However, this policy seems to
>   be implementable as a one-time policy directive to ARIN Staff. 
> Once
implemented, by putting the effected organizations back on the waiting
>   list, it seems unnecessary to memorialized the text in the NRPM, 
> it
would immediately become extraneous and potentially confusing to
>   future readers of the NRPM.
> Therefore, I would like to recommend the Policy Statement not be added 
> to the NRPM upon its implementation. I believe this to be consistent 
> with
the intent of the policy.  Otherwise, does ARIN Staff have procedural advice on 
how best to handle what seems like a one-time directive?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:21 PM ARIN  wrote:
>
>   Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of Organizations 
> Removed
from
>   Waitlist by 

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

[Mike Burns]

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:
>   Hi folks,
>
>   There was some great discussion of this policy proposal at ARIN45.
We hear a wide range of views including:
>1. Don't grandfather organizations. The new waitlist policy is
sound. 
>2. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 should be
eligible for their original request size (even if it exceeds the new limit
>   of a /22). 
>3. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 should
remain eligible if their holdings exceed a /20 OR a /18. The draft policy
>   under discussion specifies a /18 total holdings for
grandfathered orgs, while the current waitlist policy (2019-16) specifies a
/20.
>4. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 should be
eligible regardless of their total holdings because that was not a
>   restriction of the policy under which they originally qualified
for the waitlist. 
>    There was general support to continue finessing this draft. If you
have views on the above noted parameters, please make them known here.
> 
> For reference:
> 
> Old waitlist policy
>  1. Requester specifies smallest block they'd be willing to accept, equal
to or larger than the applicable minimum size specified elsewhere in ARIN
> policy.
>  2. Did not place a limit on the total existing IP address holdings of a
party eligible for the waitlist.
>  3. Made resources issued from the waitlist ineligible for transfer 
> until after a period of 12 months. New Waitlist Policy  1. Limits the 
> size of block ARIN can issue on the waitlist to a /22.
>  2. Places a limit on the total existing IP address holdings of a party
eligible for the waitlist at a /20 or less.
>  3. Makes resources issued from the waitlist ineligible for transfer 
> until after a period of 60 months.
> 
> Best,
> Alyssa
> 
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 3:35 PM David Farmer  wrote:
>   I support this policy and believe the policy development process is
the proper place to handle this issue. However, this policy seems to
>   be implementable as a one-time policy directive to ARIN Staff. Once
implemented, by putting the effected organizations back on the waiting
>   list, it seems unnecessary to memorialized the text in the NRPM, it
would immediately become extraneous and potentially confusing to
>   future readers of the NRPM.
> Therefore, I would like to recommend the Policy Statement not be added 
> to the NRPM upon its implementation. I believe this to be consistent with
the intent of the policy.  Otherwise, does ARIN Staff have procedural advice
on how best to handle what seems like a one-time directive?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:21 PM ARIN  wrote:
>
>   Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of Organizations Removed
from
>   Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16
>
>   Problem Statement:
>
>   The implementation of the ARIN-2019-16 Advisory Council
Recommendation
>   Regarding NRPM 4.1.8: Unmet Requests caused some organizations to be
>   removed from the waiting list that were approved under the old
policy?s
>   eligibility criteria. These organizations should have been
grandfathered
>   when the waitlist was reopened to allow them to receive an
allocation of
>   IPv4 up to the new policy?s 

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

[Tom Pruitt]

I support the draft policy as written, which addresses grandfathering 
organizations

Views 2, 3, and 4 seem to be addressing the list as a whole, which I would also 
support, but this draft policy was brought up to address the situation that 
happened when 2019-16 was implemented and dropped some organizations from the 
wait list.

Thanks,
Tom Pruitt
Network Engineer
Stratus Networks
[stratus_networks_logo_FINAL]
This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it are the property of Stratus 
Networks, Inc. and/or its affiliates, are confidential, and are intended solely 
for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e-mail is addressed. If 
you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe 
that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender at 
309-408-8704 and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other 
use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail 
is strictly prohibited

From: ARIN-PPML  On Behalf Of A N
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 7:56 AM
To: ARIN-PPML List 
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of 
Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16

Hi all -
Alyssa and I are shepherding this on behalf of the AC. Given the varying, 
thoughtful opinions, I'd like to prod to see if anyone else has thoughts one 
way or the other on this draft.

Anita

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 6:26 PM Alyssa Moore 
mailto:aly...@alyssamoore.ca>> wrote:
Hi folks,

There was some great discussion of this policy proposal at ARIN45. We hear a 
wide range of views including:

  1.  Don't grandfather organizations. The new waitlist policy is sound.
  2.  Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 should be eligible 
for their original request size (even if it exceeds the new limit of a /22).
  3.  Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 should remain 
eligible if their holdings exceed a /20 OR a /18. The draft policy under 
discussion specifies a /18 total holdings for grandfathered orgs, while the 
current waitlist policy (2019-16) specifies a /20.
  4.  Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 should be eligible 
regardless of their total holdings because that was not a restriction of the 
policy under which they originally qualified for the waitlist.
 There was general support to continue finessing this draft. If you have views 
on the above noted parameters, please make them known here.

For reference:

Old waitlist policy

  1.  Requester specifies smallest block they'd be willing to accept, equal to 
or larger than the applicable minimum size specified elsewhere in ARIN policy.
  2.  Did not place a limit on the total existing IP address holdings of a 
party eligible for the waitlist.
  3.  Made resources issued from the waitlist ineligible for transfer until 
after a period of 12 months.
New Waitlist Policy

  1.  Limits the size of block ARIN can issue on the waitlist to a /22.
  2.  Places a limit on the total existing IP address holdings of a party 
eligible for the waitlist at a /20 or less.
  3.  Makes resources issued from the waitlist ineligible for transfer until 
after a period of 60 months.

Best,
Alyssa

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 3:35 PM David Farmer 
mailto:far...@umn.edu>> wrote:
I support this policy and believe the policy development process is the proper 
place to handle this issue. However, this policy seems to be implementable as a 
one-time policy directive to ARIN Staff. Once implemented, by putting the 
effected organizations back on the waiting list, it seems unnecessary to 
memorialized the text in the NRPM, it would immediately become extraneous and 
potentially confusing to future readers of the NRPM.

Therefore, I would like to recommend the Policy Statement not be added to the 
NRPM upon its implementation. I believe this to be consistent with the intent 
of the policy.  Otherwise, does ARIN Staff have procedural advice on how best 
to handle what seems like a one-time directive?

Thanks

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:21 PM ARIN mailto:i...@arin.net>> 
wrote:

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

Problem Statement:

The implementation of the ARIN-2019-16 Advisory Council Recommendation
Regarding NRPM 4.1.8: Unmet Requests caused some organizations to be
removed from the waiting list that were approved under the old policy’s
eligibility criteria. These organizations should have been grandfathered
when the waitlist was reopened to allow them to receive an allocation of
IPv4 up to the new policy’s maximum size constraint of a /22.

Policy Statement: Update NRPM Section 4.1.8 as follows:

Add section 4.1.8.3 (temporary language in the NRPM to remain until the
policy objective is achieved)

Restoring organizations to the waitlist

ARIN will restore organizations that were removed from the waitlist at
the adoption of ARIN-2019-16 to their 

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

[Tom Pruitt]

I believe the number of orgs that were dropped from the list was either 33 or 
34, that would be the number eligible to be grandfathered.

Thanks,
Tom Pruitt
Network Engineer
Stratus Networks
(309)408-8704
[stratus_networks_logo_FINAL]
This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it are the property of Stratus 
Networks, Inc. and/or its affiliates, are confidential, and are intended solely 
for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e-mail is addressed. If 
you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe 
that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender at 
309-408-8704 and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other 
use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail 
is strictly prohibited

From: ARIN-PPML  On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 8:41 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 have difficulties to support this policy.
Although I understand the fact organizations were in the waitlist previously I 
also see that one who has already up to a /18 should has space to carry on and 
adjust itself for the current reality without this extra /22 which can be left 
for new entrants. There is a fairness conflict between those who were in the 
waiting list and have space to work with already and the new entrants which in 
my view should be privileged.

Do we have any numbers available to know how many organization would be 
eligible to this policy change ?

Fernando
On 14/07/2020 18:17, Michael B. Williams via ARIN-PPML wrote:
I support this policy in its entirety on behalf of GLEXI-3. We were adversely 
impacted by this removal.

Michael



Michael B. Williams
Glexia, Inc. - An IT Company
USA Direct: +1 978 477 6797
USA Toll Free: +1 800 675 0297 x101
AUS Direct: +61 3 8594 2265
AUS Toll Free: +61 1800 931 724 x101
Fax: +1.815-301-5570
michael.willi...@glexia.com
https://www.glexia.com/
https://www.glexia.com.au/

Legal Notice:
The information in this electronic mail message is the sender's confidential 
business and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the 
addressee(s). Access to this internet electronic mail message by anyone else is 
unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, 
distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is 
prohibited and may be unlawful.


On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 1:21 PM ARIN mailto:i...@arin.net>> 
wrote:
On 19 March 2020, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
"ARIN-prop-282: Grandfathering of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by
Implementation of ARIN-2019-16" as a Draft Policy.

Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2 is below and can be found at:

https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_2/

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-2020-2: Grandfathering of Organizations Removed from
Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16

Problem Statement:

The implementation of the ARIN-2019-16 Advisory Council Recommendation
Regarding NRPM 4.1.8: Unmet Requests caused some organizations to be
removed from the waiting list that were approved under the old policy’s
eligibility criteria. These organizations should have been grandfathered
when the waitlist was reopened to allow them to receive an allocation of
IPv4 up to the new policy’s maximum size constraint of a /22.

Policy Statement: Update NRPM Section 4.1.8 as follows:

Add section 4.1.8.3 (temporary language in the NRPM to remain until the
policy objective is achieved)

Restoring organizations to the waitlist

ARIN will restore organizations that were removed from the waitlist at
the adoption of ARIN-2019-16 to their previous position if their total
holdings of IPv4 address space amounts to a /18 or less. The maximum
size aggregate that a reinstated organization may qualify for is a /22.

All restored organizations extend their 2 year approval by [number of
months between July 2019 and implementation of new policy]. Any requests
met through a transfer will be considered fulfilled and removed from the
waiting list.

Comments:

Timetable for implementation: Immediate

Anything Else: While 

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

[A N]

Hi all -
Alyssa and I are shepherding this on behalf of the AC. Given the varying,
thoughtful opinions, I'd like to prod to see if anyone else has thoughts
one way or the other on this draft.

Anita

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 6:26 PM Alyssa Moore  wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> There was some great discussion of this policy proposal at ARIN45. We hear
> a wide range of views including:
>
>1. Don't grandfather organizations. The new waitlist policy is sound.
>2. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 should be
>eligible for their original request size (even if it exceeds the new limit
>of a /22).
>3. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 should
>remain eligible if their holdings exceed a /20 OR a /18. The draft policy
>under discussion specifies a /18 total holdings for grandfathered orgs,
>while the current waitlist policy (2019-16) specifies a /20.
>4. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 should be
>eligible regardless of their total holdings because that was not a
>restriction of the policy under which they originally qualified for the
>waitlist.
>
>  There was general support to continue finessing this draft. If you have
> views on the above noted parameters, please make them known here.
>
> For reference:
>
> *Old waitlist policy*
>
>1. Requester specifies smallest block they'd be willing to accept,
>equal to or larger than the applicable minimum size specified elsewhere in
>ARIN policy.
>2. Did not place a limit on the total existing IP address holdings of
>a party eligible for the waitlist.
>3. Made resources issued from the waitlist ineligible for transfer
>until after a period of 12 months.
>
> *New Waitlist Policy*
>
>1. Limits the size of block ARIN can issue on the waitlist to a /22.
>2. Places a limit on the total existing IP address holdings of a party
>eligible for the waitlist at a /20 or less.
>3. Makes resources issued from the waitlist ineligible for transfer
>until after a period of 60 months.
>
>
> Best,
> Alyssa
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 3:35 PM David Farmer  wrote:
>
>> I support this policy and believe the policy development process is the
>> proper place to handle this issue. However, this policy seems to be
>> implementable as a one-time policy directive to ARIN Staff. Once
>> implemented, by putting the effected organizations back on the waiting
>> list, it seems unnecessary to memorialized the text in the NRPM, it would
>> immediately become extraneous and potentially confusing to future readers
>> of the NRPM.
>>
>> Therefore, I would like to recommend the Policy Statement not be added to
>> the NRPM upon its implementation. I believe this to be consistent with the
>> intent of the policy.  Otherwise, does ARIN Staff have procedural advice on
>> how best to handle what seems like a one-time directive?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:21 PM ARIN  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of Organizations Removed from
>>> Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16
>>>
>>> Problem Statement:
>>>
>>> The implementation of the ARIN-2019-16 Advisory Council Recommendation
>>> Regarding NRPM 4.1.8: Unmet Requests caused some organizations to be
>>> removed from the waiting list that were approved under the old policy’s
>>> eligibility criteria. These organizations should have been grandfathered
>>> when the waitlist was reopened to allow them to receive an allocation of
>>> IPv4 up to the new policy’s maximum size constraint of a /22.
>>>
>>> Policy Statement: Update NRPM Section 4.1.8 as follows:
>>>
>>> Add section 4.1.8.3 (temporary language in the NRPM to remain until the
>>> policy objective is achieved)
>>>
>>> Restoring organizations to the waitlist
>>>
>>> ARIN will restore organizations that were removed from the waitlist at
>>> the adoption of ARIN-2019-16 to their previous position if their total
>>> holdings of IPv4 address space amounts to a /18 or less. The maximum
>>> size aggregate that a reinstated organization may qualify for is a /22.
>>>
>>> All restored organizations extend their 2 year approval by [number of
>>> months between July 2019 and implementation of new policy]. Any requests
>>> met through a transfer will be considered fulfilled and removed from the
>>> waiting list.
>>>
>>> Comments:
>>>
>>> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
>>>
>>> Anything Else: While attending ARIN 44 and discussing this with other
>>> community members the vast majority indicated that they agreed that some
>>> organizations were treated unfairly. This proposal is a remedy.
>>> ___
>>> 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 

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

[Tom Pruitt]

Being on the list certainly is not a guarantee of space,  the issue with 
2019-16 was the implementation.  One of the criteria for a policy is “Enabling 
Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration”, however the implementation 
of 2019-16 did not fit that criteria in my opinion.   Organizations with a 
cumulative of under a /20  that had a minimum request of  over a /22 were given 
the option to change their request to a /22.  Organizations with over a /20 
didn’t have that option, they were just dropped.  That was not fair nor 
impartial to the 33 or so organizations on the list that had over a /20.

The fair and impartial way to change the policy would have been to allow all 
organizations on the list  the option to change their minimum request to a /22, 
and if it was not fulfilled before their eligibility expired (2 years I 
believe) then they would have been eliminated from the list and would not have 
been eligible to get back on the list with the new criteria.Alternatively  
all organizations that were on the list that did not meet the new criteria at 
the time of implementation should have been eliminated (all organizations that 
with a minimum request over a /22 regardless of current holdings).  Either of 
those would have been fair and impartial, but that is not what happened.  This 
proposal is an attempt to address that in the only available method.


Thanks,
Tom Pruitt
Network Engineer
Stratus Networks
[stratus_networks_logo_FINAL]
This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it are the property of Stratus 
Networks, Inc. and/or its affiliates, are confidential, and are intended solely 
for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e-mail is addressed. If 
you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe 
that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender at 
309-408-8704 and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other 
use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail 
is strictly prohibited

From: ARIN-PPML  On Behalf Of Andrew Dul
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 3:40 PM
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 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:
Hi folks,

There was some great discussion of this policy proposal at ARIN45. We hear a 
wide range of views including:

  1.  Don't grandfather organizations. The new waitlist policy is sound.
  2.  Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 should be eligible 
for their original request size (even if it exceeds the new limit of a /22).
  3.  Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 should remain 
eligible if their holdings exceed a /20 OR a /18. The draft policy under 
discussion specifies a /18 total holdings for grandfathered orgs, while the 
current waitlist policy (2019-16) specifies a /20.
  4.  Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 should be eligible 
regardless of their total holdings because that was not a restriction of the 
policy under which they originally qualified for the waitlist.
 There was general support to continue finessing this draft. If you have views 
on the above noted parameters, please make them known here.

For reference:

Old waitlist policy

  1.  Requester specifies smallest block they'd be willing to accept, equal to 
or larger than the applicable minimum size specified elsewhere in ARIN policy.
  2.  Did not place a limit on the total existing IP address holdings of a 
party eligible for the waitlist.
  3.  Made resources issued from the waitlist ineligible for transfer until 
after a period of 12 months.
New Waitlist Policy

  1.  Limits the size of block ARIN can issue on the waitlist to a /22.
  2.  Places a limit on the total existing IP address holdings of a party 
eligible for the waitlist at a /20 or less.
  3.  Makes resources issued from the waitlist ineligible for transfer until 
after a period of 60 months.

Best,
Alyssa

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 3:35 PM David Farmer 
mailto:far...@umn.edu>> wrote:
I support this policy and believe the policy development process is the proper 
place to handle this issue. However, this policy seems to be implementable as a 
one-time policy directive to ARIN Staff. Once implemented, by putting the 
effected organizations back on the waiting list, it 

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

[hostmaster]

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:
  Hi folks, 

  There was some great discussion of this policy proposal at ARIN45. We 
hear a wide range of views including:
   1. Don't grandfather organizations. The new waitlist policy is sound. 
   2. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 should be 
eligible for their original request size (even if it exceeds the new limit
  of a /22). 
   3. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 should remain 
eligible if their holdings exceed a /20 OR a /18. The draft policy
  under discussion specifies a /18 total holdings for grandfathered 
orgs, while the current waitlist policy (2019-16) specifies a /20.
   4. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 should be 
eligible regardless of their total holdings because that was not a
  restriction of the policy under which they originally qualified for 
the waitlist. 
   There was general support to continue finessing this draft. If you have 
views on the above noted parameters, please make them known here.

For reference: 

Old waitlist policy
 1. Requester specifies smallest block they'd be willing to accept, equal to or 
larger than the applicable minimum size specified elsewhere in ARIN
policy.
 2. Did not place a limit on the total existing IP address holdings of a party 
eligible for the waitlist.
 3. Made resources issued from the waitlist ineligible for transfer until after 
a period of 12 months. 
New Waitlist Policy
 1. Limits the size of block ARIN can issue on the waitlist to a /22.
 2. Places a limit on the total existing IP address holdings of a party 
eligible for the waitlist at a /20 or less.
 3. Makes resources issued from the waitlist ineligible for transfer until 
after a period of 60 months.  

Best, 
Alyssa

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 3:35 PM David Farmer  wrote:
  I support this policy and believe the policy development process is the 
proper place to handle this issue. However, this policy seems to
  be implementable as a one-time policy directive to ARIN Staff. Once 
implemented, by putting the effected organizations back on the waiting
  list, it seems unnecessary to memorialized the text in the NRPM, it would 
immediately become extraneous and potentially confusing to
  future readers of the NRPM.
Therefore, I would like to recommend the Policy Statement not be added to the 
NRPM upon its implementation. I believe this to be consistent with
the intent of the policy.  Otherwise, does ARIN Staff have procedural advice on 
how best to handle what seems like a one-time directive?

Thanks

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:21 PM ARIN  wrote:

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

  Problem Statement:

  The implementation of the ARIN-2019-16 Advisory Council Recommendation
  Regarding NRPM 4.1.8: Unmet Requests caused some organizations to be
  removed from the waiting list that were approved under the old policy’s
  eligibility criteria. These organizations should have been grandfathered
  when the waitlist was reopened to allow them to receive an allocation of
  IPv4 up to the new policy’s maximum size constraint of a /22.

  Policy Statement: Update NRPM Section 4.1.8 as follows:

  Add section 4.1.8.3 (temporary language in the NRPM to remain until the
  policy objective is achieved)

  Restoring organizations to the waitlist

  ARIN will restore organizations that were removed from the waitlist at
  the adoption of ARIN-2019-16 to their previous position if their total
  holdings of IPv4 address space amounts to a /18 or less. The maximum
  size aggregate that a reinstated organization may qualify for is a /22.

  All restored organizations extend their 2 year approval by [number of
  months between July 2019 and implementation of new policy]. Any requests
  met through a transfer will be considered fulfilled and removed from the
  waiting list.

  

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

[John Curran]

Michael -

The ARIN Advisory Council (ARIN AC) is responsible for administration of ARIN's 
Policy Development Process , and 
this process includes the possibility of formally advancing draft policies to 
“Recommended” status if they meet the following criteria -

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

The ARIN AC meets monthly and reviews the status of active policy proposals, 
including hearing from the ARIN AC members assigned to the draft policy 
(“shepherds”) on the status of any discussion on this list that has occurred 
since the last call;  i.e. while all ARIN AC members are on this discussion 
list, the shepherds summarize the draft policy status, any changes made to the 
policy, and then propose that the draft police be made recommended when they 
feel that it meets the criteria.

There is not a formal tally per se, as the judgement of whether a policy is 
“supported by the community” is given to the ARIN AC based on their assessment 
of whether the policy has substantially more support than opposition in the 
community active in the discussion, and furthermore that any specific concerns 
expressed by a significant portion of the community have been considered and 
addressed in the assessment of the proposed policy change.

You can find out the current draft policies, their status, and minutes of the 
ARIN AC meetings in which they’ve been discussed here - 
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/

Best wishes, and stay safe!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers


On 15 Jul 2020, at 6:31 PM, arin-ppml@arin.net wrote:

What are the steps to officially tally feedback up received from the community 
to document all the emails coming in on this?



Michael B. Williams
Glexia, Inc. - An IT Company
USA Direct: +1 978 477 6797
USA Toll Free: +1 800 675 0297 x101
AUS Direct: +61 3 8594 2265
AUS Toll Free: +61 1800 931 724 x101
Fax: +1.815-301-5570
michael.willi...@glexia.com
https://www.glexia.com/
https://www.glexia.com.au/

Legal Notice:
The information in this electronic mail message is the sender's confidential 
business and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the 
addressee(s). Access to this internet electronic mail message by anyone else is 
unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, 
distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is 
prohibited and may be unlawful.



On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 6:26 PM Ralph Sims 
mailto:ral...@accelnet.net>> wrote:
I support the concept.  While we realized we might not ever get our request for 
a block, we needed to take steps to be in the queue and were denied a /22 
because we had an original /20 (and a /24 from being on a previous list).

From: ARIN-PPML mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net>> 
On Behalf Of Andrew Dul
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:40 PM
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 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.

___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List 
(ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List 
(ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

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

[Michael B. Williams via ARIN-PPML]

What are the steps to officially tally feedback up received from the
community to document all the emails coming in on this?

--

*Michael B. Williams*
Glexia, Inc. - An IT Company
USA Direct: +1 978 477 6797
USA Toll Free: +1 800 675 0297 x101
AUS Direct: +61 3 8594 2265
AUS Toll Free: +61 1800 931 724 x101
Fax: +1.815-301-5570
michael.willi...@glexia.com
https://www.glexia.com/
https://www.glexia.com.au/

*Legal Notice:*
The information in this electronic mail message is the sender's
confidential business and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely
for the addressee(s). Access to this internet electronic mail message by
anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any
disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be
taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful.



On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 6:26 PM Ralph Sims  wrote:

> I support the concept.  While we realized we might not ever get our
> request for a block, we needed to take steps to be in the queue and were
> denied a /22 because we had an original /20 (and a /24 from being on a
> previous list).
>
>
>
> *From:* ARIN-PPML  *On Behalf Of *Andrew Dul
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:40 PM
> *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 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.
> ___
> 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.
>


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

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

[Ralph Sims]

I support the concept.  While we realized we might not ever get our request for 
a block, we needed to take steps to be in the queue and were denied a /22 
because we had an original /20 (and a /24 from being on a previous list).

From: ARIN-PPML  On Behalf Of Andrew Dul
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:40 PM
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 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.
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

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

[Michael B. Williams via ARIN-PPML]

I personally am fine with a limit of /20 maximum for reintroduction.

Michael

--

*Michael B. Williams*
Glexia, Inc. - An IT Company
USA Direct: +1 978 477 6797
USA Toll Free: +1 800 675 0297 x101
AUS Direct: +61 3 8594 2265
AUS Toll Free: +61 1800 931 724 x101
Fax: +1.815-301-5570
michael.willi...@glexia.com
https://www.glexia.com/
https://www.glexia.com.au/

*Legal Notice:*
The information in this electronic mail message is the sender's
confidential business and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely
for the addressee(s). Access to this internet electronic mail message by
anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any
disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be
taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful.



On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 4:40 PM 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:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> There was some great discussion of this policy proposal at ARIN45. We hear
> a wide range of views including:
>
>1. Don't grandfather organizations. The new waitlist policy is sound.
>2. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 should be
>eligible for their original request size (even if it exceeds the new limit
>of a /22).
>3. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 should
>remain eligible if their holdings exceed a /20 OR a /18. The draft policy
>under discussion specifies a /18 total holdings for grandfathered orgs,
>while the current waitlist policy (2019-16) specifies a /20.
>4. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 should be
>eligible regardless of their total holdings because that was not a
>restriction of the policy under which they originally qualified for the
>waitlist.
>
>  There was general support to continue finessing this draft. If you have
> views on the above noted parameters, please make them known here.
>
> For reference:
>
> *Old waitlist policy*
>
>1. Requester specifies smallest block they'd be willing to accept,
>equal to or larger than the applicable minimum size specified elsewhere in
>ARIN policy.
>2. Did not place a limit on the total existing IP address holdings of
>a party eligible for the waitlist.
>3. Made resources issued from the waitlist ineligible for transfer
>until after a period of 12 months.
>
> *New Waitlist Policy*
>
>1. Limits the size of block ARIN can issue on the waitlist to a /22.
>2. Places a limit on the total existing IP address holdings of a party
>eligible for the waitlist at a /20 or less.
>3. Makes resources issued from the waitlist ineligible for transfer
>until after a period of 60 months.
>
>
> Best,
> Alyssa
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 3:35 PM David Farmer  wrote:
>
>> I support this policy and believe the policy development process is the
>> proper place to handle this issue. However, this policy seems to be
>> implementable as a one-time policy directive to ARIN Staff. Once
>> implemented, by putting the effected organizations back on the waiting
>> list, it seems unnecessary to memorialized the text in the NRPM, it would
>> immediately become extraneous and potentially confusing to future readers
>> of the NRPM.
>>
>> Therefore, I would like to recommend the Policy Statement not be added to
>> the NRPM upon its implementation. I believe this to be consistent with the
>> intent of the policy.  Otherwise, does ARIN Staff have procedural advice on
>> how best to handle what seems like a one-time directive?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:21 PM ARIN  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of Organizations Removed from
>>> Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16
>>>
>>> Problem Statement:
>>>
>>> The implementation of the ARIN-2019-16 Advisory Council Recommendation
>>> Regarding NRPM 4.1.8: Unmet Requests caused some organizations to be
>>> removed from the waiting list that were approved under the old policy’s
>>> eligibility criteria. These organizations should have been grandfathered
>>> when the waitlist was reopened to allow them to receive an allocation of
>>> IPv4 up to the new policy’s maximum size constraint of a /22.
>>>
>>> Policy Statement: Update NRPM Section 4.1.8 as follows:
>>>
>>> Add section 4.1.8.3 (temporary language in the NRPM to remain until the
>>> policy objective is 

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

[Andrew Dul]

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:

Hi folks,

There was some great discussion of this policy proposal at ARIN45. We 
hear a wide range of views including:


 1. Don't grandfather organizations. The new waitlist policy is sound.
 2. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 should be
eligible for their original request size (even if it exceeds the
new limit of a /22).
 3. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 should
remain eligible if their holdings exceed a /20 OR a /18. The draft
policy under discussion specifies a /18 total holdings for
grandfathered orgs, while the current waitlist policy (2019-16)
specifies a /20.
 4. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 should be
eligible regardless of their total holdings because that was not a
restriction of the policy under which they originally qualified
for the waitlist.

 There was general support to continue finessing this draft. If you 
have views on the above noted parameters, please make them known here.


For reference:

*Old waitlist policy*

 1. Requester specifies smallest block they'd be willing to accept,
equal to or larger than the applicable minimum size specified
elsewhere in ARIN policy.
 2. Did not place a limit on the total existing IP address holdings of
a party eligible for the waitlist.
 3. Made resources issued from the waitlist ineligible for transfer
until after a period of 12 months.

*New Waitlist Policy*

 1. Limits the size of block ARIN can issue on the waitlist to a /22.
 2. Places a limit on the total existing IP address holdings of a
party eligible for the waitlist at a /20 or less.
 3. Makes resources issued from the waitlist ineligible for transfer
until after a period of 60 months.


Best,
Alyssa

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 3:35 PM David Farmer > wrote:


I support this policy and believe the policy development process
is the proper place to handle this issue. However, this policy
seems to be implementable as a one-time policy directive to ARIN
Staff. Once implemented, by putting the
effected organizations back on the waiting list, it seems
unnecessary to memorialized the text in the NRPM, it would
immediately become extraneous and potentially confusing to future
readers of the NRPM.

Therefore, I would like to recommend the Policy Statement not be
added to the NRPM upon its implementation. I believe this to
be consistent with the intent of the policy.  Otherwise, does ARIN
Staff have procedural advice on how best to handle what seems like
a one-time directive?

Thanks

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:21 PM ARIN mailto:i...@arin.net>> wrote:


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

Problem Statement:

The implementation of the ARIN-2019-16 Advisory Council
Recommendation
Regarding NRPM 4.1.8: Unmet Requests caused some organizations
to be
removed from the waiting list that were approved under the old
policy’s
eligibility criteria. These organizations should have been
grandfathered
when the waitlist was reopened to allow them to receive an
allocation of
IPv4 up to the new policy’s maximum size constraint of a /22.

Policy Statement: Update NRPM Section 4.1.8 as follows:

Add section 4.1.8.3 (temporary language in the NRPM to remain
until the
policy objective is achieved)

Restoring organizations to the waitlist

ARIN will restore organizations that were removed from the
waitlist at
the adoption of ARIN-2019-16 to their previous position if
their total
holdings of IPv4 address space amounts to a /18 or less. The
maximum
size aggregate that a reinstated organization may qualify for
is a /22.

All restored organizations extend their 2 year approval by
[number of
months between July 2019 and implementation of new policy].
Any requests
met through a transfer will be considered fulfilled and
removed from the
waiting list.

Comments:

Timetable for implementation: Immediate

Anything Else: While attending ARIN 44 and discussing this

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

[Fernando Frediani]

I have difficulties to support this policy.
Although I understand the fact organizations were in the waitlist 
previously I also see that one who has already up to a /18 should has 
space to carry on and adjust itself for the current reality without this 
extra /22 which can be left for new entrants. There is a fairness 
conflict between those who were in the waiting list and have space to 
work with already and the new entrants which in my view should be 
privileged.


Do we have any numbers available to know how many organization would be 
eligible to this policy change ?


Fernando

On 14/07/2020 18:17, Michael B. Williams via ARIN-PPML wrote:
I support this policy in its entirety on behalf of GLEXI-3. We were 
adversely impacted by this removal.


Michael



*Michael B. Williams*
Glexia, Inc. - An IT Company
USA Direct: +1 978 477 6797
USA Toll Free: +1 800 675 0297 x101
AUS Direct: +61 3 8594 2265
AUS Toll Free: +61 1800 931 724 x101
Fax: +1.815-301-5570
michael.willi...@glexia.com 
https://www.glexia.com/
https://www.glexia.com.au/

*Legal Notice:*
The information in this electronic mail message is the sender's 
confidential business and may be legally privileged. It is intended 
solely for the addressee(s). Access to this internet electronic mail 
message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended 
recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken 
or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be 
unlawful.




On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 1:21 PM ARIN > wrote:


On 19 March 2020, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
"ARIN-prop-282: Grandfathering of Organizations Removed from
Waitlist by
Implementation of ARIN-2019-16" as a Draft Policy.

Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2 is below and can be found at:

https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_2/

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-2020-2: Grandfathering of Organizations Removed
from
Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16

Problem Statement:

The implementation of the ARIN-2019-16 Advisory Council
Recommendation
Regarding NRPM 4.1.8: Unmet Requests caused some organizations to be
removed from the waiting list that were approved under the old
policy’s
eligibility criteria. These organizations should have been
grandfathered
when the waitlist was reopened to allow them to receive an
allocation of
IPv4 up to the new policy’s maximum size constraint of a /22.

Policy Statement: Update NRPM Section 4.1.8 as follows:

Add section 4.1.8.3 (temporary language in the NRPM to remain
until the
policy objective is achieved)

Restoring organizations to the waitlist

ARIN will restore organizations that were removed from the
waitlist at
the adoption of ARIN-2019-16 to their previous position if their
total
holdings of IPv4 address space amounts to a /18 or less. The maximum
size aggregate that a reinstated organization may qualify for is a
/22.

All restored organizations extend their 2 year approval by [number of
months between July 2019 and implementation of new policy]. Any
requests
met through a transfer will be considered fulfilled and removed
from the
waiting list.

Comments:

Timetable for implementation: Immediate

Anything Else: While attending ARIN 44 and discussing this with other
community members the vast majority indicated that they agreed
that some
organizations were treated unfairly. This proposal is a remedy.
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net
).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net  if you
experience any issues.


___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy 

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

[Michael B. Williams via ARIN-PPML]

I support this policy in its entirety on behalf of GLEXI-3. We were
adversely impacted by this removal.

Michael

--

*Michael B. Williams*
Glexia, Inc. - An IT Company
USA Direct: +1 978 477 6797
USA Toll Free: +1 800 675 0297 x101
AUS Direct: +61 3 8594 2265
AUS Toll Free: +61 1800 931 724 x101
Fax: +1.815-301-5570
michael.willi...@glexia.com
https://www.glexia.com/
https://www.glexia.com.au/

*Legal Notice:*
The information in this electronic mail message is the sender's
confidential business and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely
for the addressee(s). Access to this internet electronic mail message by
anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any
disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be
taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful.



On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 1:21 PM ARIN  wrote:

> On 19 March 2020, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
> "ARIN-prop-282: Grandfathering of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by
> Implementation of ARIN-2019-16" as a Draft Policy.
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2 is below and can be found at:
>
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_2/
>
> 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-2020-2: Grandfathering of Organizations Removed from
> Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16
>
> Problem Statement:
>
> The implementation of the ARIN-2019-16 Advisory Council Recommendation
> Regarding NRPM 4.1.8: Unmet Requests caused some organizations to be
> removed from the waiting list that were approved under the old policy’s
> eligibility criteria. These organizations should have been grandfathered
> when the waitlist was reopened to allow them to receive an allocation of
> IPv4 up to the new policy’s maximum size constraint of a /22.
>
> Policy Statement: Update NRPM Section 4.1.8 as follows:
>
> Add section 4.1.8.3 (temporary language in the NRPM to remain until the
> policy objective is achieved)
>
> Restoring organizations to the waitlist
>
> ARIN will restore organizations that were removed from the waitlist at
> the adoption of ARIN-2019-16 to their previous position if their total
> holdings of IPv4 address space amounts to a /18 or less. The maximum
> size aggregate that a reinstated organization may qualify for is a /22.
>
> All restored organizations extend their 2 year approval by [number of
> months between July 2019 and implementation of new policy]. Any requests
> met through a transfer will be considered fulfilled and removed from the
> waiting list.
>
> Comments:
>
> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
>
> Anything Else: While attending ARIN 44 and discussing this with other
> community members the vast majority indicated that they agreed that some
> organizations were treated unfairly. This proposal is a remedy.
> ___
> 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.
>


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

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

[Tom Pruitt]

I am in favor of at least the new policy below.  Actually I’m in favor of views 
2, 3, or 4 but I can support the new policy below.   During the meeting, it 
appeared a large majority of the people who had views were in support of doing 
something for these organizations.

Thanks,
Tom Pruitt
Network Engineer
Stratus Networks
(309)408-8704
[stratus_networks_logo_FINAL]
This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it are the property of Stratus 
Networks, Inc. and/or its affiliates, are confidential, and are intended solely 
for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e-mail is addressed. If 
you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe 
that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender at 
309-408-8704 and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other 
use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail 
is strictly prohibited

From: ARIN-PPML  On Behalf Of Alyssa Moore
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 1:26 PM
To: David Farmer 
Cc: ARIN-PPML List 
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of 
Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16

Hi folks,

There was some great discussion of this policy proposal at ARIN45. We hear a 
wide range of views including:

  1.  Don't grandfather organizations. The new waitlist policy is sound.
  2.  Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 should be eligible 
for their original request size (even if it exceeds the new limit of a /22).
  3.  Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 should remain 
eligible if their holdings exceed a /20 OR a /18. The draft policy under 
discussion specifies a /18 total holdings for grandfathered orgs, while the 
current waitlist policy (2019-16) specifies a /20.
  4.  Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 should be eligible 
regardless of their total holdings because that was not a restriction of the 
policy under which they originally qualified for the waitlist.
 There was general support to continue finessing this draft. If you have views 
on the above noted parameters, please make them known here.

For reference:

Old waitlist policy

  1.  Requester specifies smallest block they'd be willing to accept, equal to 
or larger than the applicable minimum size specified elsewhere in ARIN policy.
  2.  Did not place a limit on the total existing IP address holdings of a 
party eligible for the waitlist.
  3.  Made resources issued from the waitlist ineligible for transfer until 
after a period of 12 months.
New Waitlist Policy

  1.  Limits the size of block ARIN can issue on the waitlist to a /22.
  2.  Places a limit on the total existing IP address holdings of a party 
eligible for the waitlist at a /20 or less.
  3.  Makes resources issued from the waitlist ineligible for transfer until 
after a period of 60 months.

Best,
Alyssa

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 3:35 PM David Farmer 
mailto:far...@umn.edu>> wrote:
I support this policy and believe the policy development process is the proper 
place to handle this issue. However, this policy seems to be implementable as a 
one-time policy directive to ARIN Staff. Once implemented, by putting the 
effected organizations back on the waiting list, it seems unnecessary to 
memorialized the text in the NRPM, it would immediately become extraneous and 
potentially confusing to future readers of the NRPM.

Therefore, I would like to recommend the Policy Statement not be added to the 
NRPM upon its implementation. I believe this to be consistent with the intent 
of the policy.  Otherwise, does ARIN Staff have procedural advice on how best 
to handle what seems like a one-time directive?

Thanks

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:21 PM ARIN mailto:i...@arin.net>> 
wrote:

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

Problem Statement:

The implementation of the ARIN-2019-16 Advisory Council Recommendation
Regarding NRPM 4.1.8: Unmet Requests caused some organizations to be
removed from the waiting list that were approved under the old policy’s
eligibility criteria. These organizations should have been grandfathered
when the waitlist was reopened to allow them to receive an allocation of
IPv4 up to the new policy’s maximum size constraint of a /22.

Policy Statement: Update NRPM Section 4.1.8 as follows:

Add section 4.1.8.3 (temporary language in the NRPM to remain until the
policy objective is achieved)

Restoring organizations to the waitlist

ARIN will restore organizations that were removed from the waitlist at
the adoption of ARIN-2019-16 to their previous position if their total
holdings of IPv4 address space amounts to a /18 or less. The maximum
size aggregate that a reinstated organization may qualify for is a /22.

All restored organizations extend their 2 year approval by [number of
months between July 2019 and implementation of new policy]. Any 

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

[Alyssa Moore]

Hi folks,

There was some great discussion of this policy proposal at ARIN45. We hear
a wide range of views including:

   1. Don't grandfather organizations. The new waitlist policy is sound.
   2. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 should be
   eligible for their original request size (even if it exceeds the new limit
   of a /22).
   3. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 should remain
   eligible if their holdings exceed a /20 OR a /18. The draft policy under
   discussion specifies a /18 total holdings for grandfathered orgs, while the
   current waitlist policy (2019-16) specifies a /20.
   4. Organizations that were on the waitlist before 2019-16 should be
   eligible regardless of their total holdings because that was not a
   restriction of the policy under which they originally qualified for the
   waitlist.

 There was general support to continue finessing this draft. If you have
views on the above noted parameters, please make them known here.

For reference:

*Old waitlist policy*

   1. Requester specifies smallest block they'd be willing to accept, equal
   to or larger than the applicable minimum size specified elsewhere in ARIN
   policy.
   2. Did not place a limit on the total existing IP address holdings of a
   party eligible for the waitlist.
   3. Made resources issued from the waitlist ineligible for transfer until
   after a period of 12 months.

*New Waitlist Policy*

   1. Limits the size of block ARIN can issue on the waitlist to a /22.
   2. Places a limit on the total existing IP address holdings of a party
   eligible for the waitlist at a /20 or less.
   3. Makes resources issued from the waitlist ineligible for transfer
   until after a period of 60 months.


Best,
Alyssa

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 3:35 PM David Farmer  wrote:

> I support this policy and believe the policy development process is the
> proper place to handle this issue. However, this policy seems to be
> implementable as a one-time policy directive to ARIN Staff. Once
> implemented, by putting the effected organizations back on the waiting
> list, it seems unnecessary to memorialized the text in the NRPM, it would
> immediately become extraneous and potentially confusing to future readers
> of the NRPM.
>
> Therefore, I would like to recommend the Policy Statement not be added to
> the NRPM upon its implementation. I believe this to be consistent with the
> intent of the policy.  Otherwise, does ARIN Staff have procedural advice on
> how best to handle what seems like a one-time directive?
>
> Thanks
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:21 PM ARIN  wrote:
>
>>
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of Organizations Removed from
>> Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16
>>
>> Problem Statement:
>>
>> The implementation of the ARIN-2019-16 Advisory Council Recommendation
>> Regarding NRPM 4.1.8: Unmet Requests caused some organizations to be
>> removed from the waiting list that were approved under the old policy’s
>> eligibility criteria. These organizations should have been grandfathered
>> when the waitlist was reopened to allow them to receive an allocation of
>> IPv4 up to the new policy’s maximum size constraint of a /22.
>>
>> Policy Statement: Update NRPM Section 4.1.8 as follows:
>>
>> Add section 4.1.8.3 (temporary language in the NRPM to remain until the
>> policy objective is achieved)
>>
>> Restoring organizations to the waitlist
>>
>> ARIN will restore organizations that were removed from the waitlist at
>> the adoption of ARIN-2019-16 to their previous position if their total
>> holdings of IPv4 address space amounts to a /18 or less. The maximum
>> size aggregate that a reinstated organization may qualify for is a /22.
>>
>> All restored organizations extend their 2 year approval by [number of
>> months between July 2019 and implementation of new policy]. Any requests
>> met through a transfer will be considered fulfilled and removed from the
>> waiting list.
>>
>> Comments:
>>
>> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
>>
>> Anything Else: While attending ARIN 44 and discussing this with other
>> community members the vast majority indicated that they agreed that some
>> organizations were treated unfairly. This proposal is a remedy.
>> ___
>> ARIN-PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>
>
>
> --
> ===
> David Farmer   Email:far...@umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SEPhone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===
> 

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

[David Farmer]

I support this policy and believe the policy development process is the
proper place to handle this issue. However, this policy seems to be
implementable as a one-time policy directive to ARIN Staff. Once
implemented, by putting the effected organizations back on the waiting
list, it seems unnecessary to memorialized the text in the NRPM, it would
immediately become extraneous and potentially confusing to future readers
of the NRPM.

Therefore, I would like to recommend the Policy Statement not be added to
the NRPM upon its implementation. I believe this to be consistent with the
intent of the policy.  Otherwise, does ARIN Staff have procedural advice on
how best to handle what seems like a one-time directive?

Thanks

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:21 PM ARIN  wrote:

>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of Organizations Removed from
> Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16
>
> Problem Statement:
>
> The implementation of the ARIN-2019-16 Advisory Council Recommendation
> Regarding NRPM 4.1.8: Unmet Requests caused some organizations to be
> removed from the waiting list that were approved under the old policy’s
> eligibility criteria. These organizations should have been grandfathered
> when the waitlist was reopened to allow them to receive an allocation of
> IPv4 up to the new policy’s maximum size constraint of a /22.
>
> Policy Statement: Update NRPM Section 4.1.8 as follows:
>
> Add section 4.1.8.3 (temporary language in the NRPM to remain until the
> policy objective is achieved)
>
> Restoring organizations to the waitlist
>
> ARIN will restore organizations that were removed from the waitlist at
> the adoption of ARIN-2019-16 to their previous position if their total
> holdings of IPv4 address space amounts to a /18 or less. The maximum
> size aggregate that a reinstated organization may qualify for is a /22.
>
> All restored organizations extend their 2 year approval by [number of
> months between July 2019 and implementation of new policy]. Any requests
> met through a transfer will be considered fulfilled and removed from the
> waiting list.
>
> Comments:
>
> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
>
> Anything Else: While attending ARIN 44 and discussing this with other
> community members the vast majority indicated that they agreed that some
> organizations were treated unfairly. This proposal is a remedy.
> ___
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
>


-- 
===
David Farmer   Email:far...@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SEPhone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

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

[Mike Burns]

I support this, having spoken with some of the injured parties at the last ARIN 
meeting.
They suffered as a reaction to somebody else's fraud.

Regards,
Mike


-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML  On Behalf Of ARIN
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2020 1:21 PM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of Organizations 
Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16

On 19 March 2020, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
"ARIN-prop-282: Grandfathering of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by 
Implementation of ARIN-2019-16" as a Draft Policy.

Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2 is below and can be found at:

https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_2/

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-2020-2: Grandfathering of Organizations Removed from Waitlist 
by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16

Problem Statement:

The implementation of the ARIN-2019-16 Advisory Council Recommendation 
Regarding NRPM 4.1.8: Unmet Requests caused some organizations to be removed 
from the waiting list that were approved under the old policy’s eligibility 
criteria. These organizations should have been grandfathered when the waitlist 
was reopened to allow them to receive an allocation of
IPv4 up to the new policy’s maximum size constraint of a /22.

Policy Statement: Update NRPM Section 4.1.8 as follows:

Add section 4.1.8.3 (temporary language in the NRPM to remain until the policy 
objective is achieved)

Restoring organizations to the waitlist

ARIN will restore organizations that were removed from the waitlist at the 
adoption of ARIN-2019-16 to their previous position if their total holdings of 
IPv4 address space amounts to a /18 or less. The maximum size aggregate that a 
reinstated organization may qualify for is a /22.

All restored organizations extend their 2 year approval by [number of months 
between July 2019 and implementation of new policy]. Any requests met through a 
transfer will be considered fulfilled and removed from the waiting list.

Comments:

Timetable for implementation: Immediate

Anything Else: While attending ARIN 44 and discussing this with other community 
members the vast majority indicated that they agreed that some organizations 
were treated unfairly. This proposal is a remedy.
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public 
Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.