Re: 44/8

[Owen DeLong]

> On Aug 31, 2019, at 09:23 , Doug Barton  wrote:
> 
> On 8/27/19 8:52 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> On Jul 26, 2019, at 21:59 , Doug Barton >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Responding to no one in particular, and not representing views of any 
>>> current or former employer ...
>>> 
>>> I find all of this hullabaloo to be ... fascinating. A little background to 
>>> frame my comments below. I was GM of the IANA in the early 2000's, I held a 
>>> tech license from 1994 through 2004 (I gave it up because life changed, and 
>>> I no longer had time; but I still have all my toys, err, I mean, gear); and 
>>> I have known two of the ARDC board members and one of the advisors listed 
>>> at https://www.ampr.org/amprnet/ for over fifteen years. I consider them 
>>> all friends, and trust their judgement explicitly. One of them I've known 
>>> for over 20 years, and consider a close and very dear friend.
>>> 
>>> There have been a number of points over the past 30 years where anyone who 
>>> genuinely cared about this space could have used any number of mechanisms 
>>> to raise concerns over how it's been managed, and by whom. I cannot help 
>>> but think that some of this current sound and fury is an excuse to express 
>>> righteous indignation for its own sake. The folks involved with ARDC have 
>>> been caring for the space for a long time. From my perspective, seeing the 
>>> writing on the wall regarding the upcoming friction around IPv4 space as an 
>>> asset with monetary value increasing exponentially, they took quite 
>>> reasonable steps to create a legal framework to ensure that their ability 
>>> to continue managing the space would be protected. Some of you may remember 
>>> that other groups, like the IETF, were taking similar steps before during 
>>> and after that same time frame. Sure, you can complain about what was done, 
>>> how it was done, etc.; but where were you then? Are you sure that at least 
>>> part of your anger isn't due to the fact that all of these things have 
>>> happened over the last 20 years, and you had no idea they were happening?
>>> 
>> Certainly part of my anger is that I did not know some of them were 
>> happening.
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
>> However, most of my anger is around the fact that:
>> 1.It never in a million years would have occurred to me that these people 
>> who I also consider friends and also trust explicitly
>> would take this particular action without significant prior (and much wider) 
>> consultation with the amateur radio community.
>> 2.I believe this was done quietly and carefully orchestrated specifically to 
>> avoid any risk of successful backlash by the time
>> the community became aware of this particular intended action.
> 
> I have actually been in this exact same position, of knowing that a thing is 
> the right thing to do, but also knowing that doing it would create a 
> poop-storm. I don't know if your analysis is right or not, but if I had been 
> in their shoes I probably would have done the same thing.

Well, I suppose that’s a matter of perspective and personal conviction.

For me, It’s hard to defend a belief that an action is correct if I’m afraid 
that the community I’m a steward for will offer up significant opposition to 
the point that I want to take the action in secret behind the back of the 
community.

I’m not intending any insult, or judgment on your value system, but from my 
perspective, avoiding the community discussion of a plan and acting on it 
behind their backs is an act of cowardice, not an act of conviction.

>> If you want to say shame on us for trusting these people and not noticing 
>> the severe corporate governance problems with ARDC until
>> they took this particular action, then I suppose that’s a fair comment.
> 
> No, I am not attempting to shame anyone (although I admit my message was a 
> bit testy). My point is simply that all of this after-the-fact griping, in 
> the absence of any proven harm, is probably not as much about the thing as it 
> is about self-culpability in what lead up to the thing. But as humans it's 
> hard to direct that anger towards ourselves, so it gets directed outwardly. 
> So, no shame, as it's a very human reaction. But a little more self-awareness 
> would not be out of place.

There is proven harm. There were active users of the address space sold that 
were (at the very least) forced to renumber.

>>> So let's talk a little about what "stewardship" means. Many folks have 
>>> complained about how ARDC has not done a good job of $X function that 
>>> stewards of the space should perform. Do you think having some money in the 
>>> bank will help contribute to their ability to do that? Has anyone looked at 
>>> how much of the space is actually being used now, and what percentage 
>>> reduction in available space carving out a /10 actually represents? And 
>>> nowadays when IPv6 is readily available essentially "for free," how much is 
>>> the amateur community 

Re: 44/8

[Doug Barton]

On 8/27/19 8:52 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:



On Jul 26, 2019, at 21:59 , Doug Barton > wrote:


Responding to no one in particular, and not representing views of any 
current or former employer ...


I find all of this hullabaloo to be ... fascinating. A little 
background to frame my comments below. I was GM of the IANA in the 
early 2000's, I held a tech license from 1994 through 2004 (I gave it 
up because life changed, and I no longer had time; but I still have 
all my toys, err, I mean, gear); and I have known two of the ARDC 
board members and one of the advisors listed at 
https://www.ampr.org/amprnet/ for over fifteen years. I consider them 
all friends, and trust their judgement explicitly. One of them I've 
known for over 20 years, and consider a close and very dear friend.


There have been a number of points over the past 30 years where anyone 
who genuinely cared about this space could have used any number of 
mechanisms to raise concerns over how it's been managed, and by whom. 
I cannot help but think that some of this current sound and fury is an 
excuse to express righteous indignation for its own sake. The folks 
involved with ARDC have been caring for the space for a long time. 
From my perspective, seeing the writing on the wall regarding the 
upcoming friction around IPv4 space as an asset with monetary value 
increasing exponentially, they took quite reasonable steps to create a 
legal framework to ensure that their ability to continue managing the 
space would be protected. Some of you may remember that other groups, 
like the IETF, were taking similar steps before during and after that 
same time frame. Sure, you can complain about what was done, how it 
was done, etc.; but where were you then? Are you sure that at least 
part of your anger isn't due to the fact that all of these things have 
happened over the last 20 years, and you had no idea they were happening?




Certainly part of my anger is that I did not know some of them were 
happening.


Fair enough.


However, most of my anger is around the fact that:
1.It never in a million years would have occurred to me that these 
people who I also consider friends and also trust explicitly
would take this particular action without significant prior (and much 
wider) consultation with the amateur radio community.


2.I believe this was done quietly and carefully orchestrated 
specifically to avoid any risk of successful backlash by the time

the community became aware of this particular intended action.


I have actually been in this exact same position, of knowing that a 
thing is the right thing to do, but also knowing that doing it would 
create a poop-storm. I don't know if your analysis is right or not, but 
if I had been in their shoes I probably would have done the same thing.


If you want to say shame on us for trusting these people and not 
noticing the severe corporate governance problems with ARDC until

they took this particular action, then I suppose that’s a fair comment.


No, I am not attempting to shame anyone (although I admit my message was 
a bit testy). My point is simply that all of this after-the-fact 
griping, in the absence of any proven harm, is probably not as much 
about the thing as it is about self-culpability in what lead up to the 
thing. But as humans it's hard to direct that anger towards ourselves, 
so it gets directed outwardly. So, no shame, as it's a very human 
reaction. But a little more self-awareness would not be out of place.


So let's talk a little about what "stewardship" means. Many folks have 
complained about how ARDC has not done a good job of $X function that 
stewards of the space should perform. Do you think having some money 
in the bank will help contribute to their ability to do that? Has 
anyone looked at how much of the space is actually being used now, and 
what percentage reduction in available space carving out a /10 
actually represents? And nowadays when IPv6 is readily available 
essentially "for free," how much is the amateur community actually 
being affected by this?


All of those are good questions. I don’t have data to answer any of them 


So shouldn't actually looking at the space to determine if any real harm 
was done be the next step?


Doug

Re: 44/8

[Owen DeLong]

> On Aug 27, 2019, at 23:50 , Bryan Fields  wrote:
> 
> On 8/27/19 11:52 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> On Jul 26, 2019, at 21:59 , Doug Barton  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>> and I have known two of the ARDC board members and one of
>>> the advisors listed at https://www.ampr.org/amprnet/
>>>  for over fifteen years. I consider them
>>> all friends, and trust their judgement explicitly. One of them I've known
>>> for over 20 years, and consider a close and very dear friend.
>>> 
>>> There have been a number of points over the past 30 years where anyone
>>> who genuinely cared about this space could have used any number of
>>> mechanisms to raise concerns over how it's been managed, and by whom.
> 
> 
> 
> I will say most people ignored them, as TBQH, nothing changes in amateur radio
> until people die.  ARDC finally allocated space, got reverse DNS working, and
> basically did nothing else.  It was a technical org doing nothing of any real
> value.
> 
> I had brought up the issues of governance numerous times, and said it didn't
> look right to have people on the board with conflicts, or even licensed
> amateurs.

I confess I never saw any of the questions about governance prior to the 
announcement
of the sale. If I had, I might have been spurred to look closer at least.

>  There were other personnel issues brought up as well and no action
> was taken.  If was an org doing the bare minimums and we got what we needed
> from it, so why rock the boat?

Well, there’s also the fact that the people involved in the org that I was 
aware of were
people that I trusted and would not have expected to take radical action absent 
some
outreach and consent of the community.

>> However, most of my anger is around the fact that: 1.It never in a 
>> million
>> years would have occurred to me that these people who I also consider
>> friends and also trust explicitly would take this particular action without
>> significant prior (and much wider) consultation with the amateur radio
>> community.
>> 
>> 2.   I believe this was done quietly and carefully orchestrated specifically
>> to avoid any risk of successful backlash by the time the community became
>> aware of this particular intended action.
> 
> Bingo.
> 
>> If you want to say shame on us for trusting these people and not noticing
>> the severe corporate governance problems with ARDC until they took this
>> particular action, then I suppose that’s a fair comment.
> 
> Many know these people, and you cannot let that acquaintance cloud your
> judgment here.  If these were people you did not know and they did this, you'd
> call it what it is.  If an acquaintance does the same action, is it not the 
> same?

An acquaintance is different from a trusted colleague and friend. While I don’t
have particularly close relationships with the parties involved, I did consider 
them
trusted colleagues and friends.

This doesn’t cloud my judgment about calling this action what it was, but it did
cloud my judgment in terms of anticipating this action. When we trust people,
we don’t expect them to act outside of certain bounds, as I did not expect that
these particular people would act in this particular manner.

It is a denial of human nature to claim that we can not allow our trust to cloud
our judgment when it comes to expectations of how people will act.

> Does it pass the smell test that 44/8 was used, with no benefit to ARDC by
> CAIDA?  This use held back deployment of 44/8 for years by the amateur users.
> Does it smell funny that the majority of the board members of ARDC were CAIDA
> board members?

It does pass the smell test, actually, when I understand the manner in which it 
was
“used”.

CAIDA is not some evil spammer researching ways to infiltrate more networks or
hide more snowshoeing. They are a public benefit research organization that has
provided a lot of valuable information to the internet over the years.

Their “use” of 44/8 was limited to a passive feed of otherwise unroutable 
packets
destined for unregistered addresses within 44/8. Since they were adjacent to
the router where this was occurring. I’m not sure how or why you claim that
this held back deployment for years. You’ll need to provide more information
and/or evidence to support that claim. At the moment, as I understand things,
that claim doesn’t pass the smell test.

>>> So let's talk a little about what "stewardship" means. Many folks have
>>> complained about how ARDC has not done a good job of $X function that
>>> stewards of the space should perform. Do you think having some money in
>>> the bank will help contribute to their ability to do that? Has anyone
>>> looked at how much of the space is actually being used now, and what
>>> percentage reduction in available space carving out a /10 actually
>>> represents? And nowadays when IPv6 is readily available essentially "for
>>> free," how much is the amateur community actually being affected by this?
>>> 
>>> 
>> All 

Re: 44/8

[Bryan Fields]

On 8/27/19 11:52 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Jul 26, 2019, at 21:59 , Doug Barton  wrote:



>> and I have known two of the ARDC board members and one of
>> the advisors listed at https://www.ampr.org/amprnet/
>>  for over fifteen years. I consider them
>> all friends, and trust their judgement explicitly. One of them I've known
>> for over 20 years, and consider a close and very dear friend.
>> 
>> There have been a number of points over the past 30 years where anyone
>> who genuinely cared about this space could have used any number of
>> mechanisms to raise concerns over how it's been managed, and by whom.



I will say most people ignored them, as TBQH, nothing changes in amateur radio
until people die.  ARDC finally allocated space, got reverse DNS working, and
basically did nothing else.  It was a technical org doing nothing of any real
value.

I had brought up the issues of governance numerous times, and said it didn't
look right to have people on the board with conflicts, or even licensed
amateurs.  There were other personnel issues brought up as well and no action
was taken.  If was an org doing the bare minimums and we got what we needed
from it, so why rock the boat?

> However, most of my anger is around the fact that: 1. It never in a million
> years would have occurred to me that these people who I also consider
> friends and also trust explicitly would take this particular action without
> significant prior (and much wider) consultation with the amateur radio
> community.
> 
> 2.I believe this was done quietly and carefully orchestrated specifically
> to avoid any risk of successful backlash by the time the community became
> aware of this particular intended action.

Bingo.

> If you want to say shame on us for trusting these people and not noticing
> the severe corporate governance problems with ARDC until they took this
> particular action, then I suppose that’s a fair comment.

Many know these people, and you cannot let that acquaintance cloud your
judgment here.  If these were people you did not know and they did this, you'd
call it what it is.  If an acquaintance does the same action, is it not the 
same?

Does it pass the smell test that 44/8 was used, with no benefit to ARDC by
CAIDA?  This use held back deployment of 44/8 for years by the amateur users.
 Does it smell funny that the majority of the board members of ARDC were CAIDA
board members?

>> So let's talk a little about what "stewardship" means. Many folks have
>> complained about how ARDC has not done a good job of $X function that
>> stewards of the space should perform. Do you think having some money in
>> the bank will help contribute to their ability to do that? Has anyone
>> looked at how much of the space is actually being used now, and what
>> percentage reduction in available space carving out a /10 actually
>> represents? And nowadays when IPv6 is readily available essentially "for
>> free," how much is the amateur community actually being affected by this?
>> 
>> 
> All of those are good questions. I don’t have data to answer any of them
> other than that removing a /10 from a /8 is obviously a 25% reduction in
> the total space, so clearly a somewhat larger (though I don’t know by how
> much) reduction in available space since available space is some fraction
> of the remaining 1.5 /9s.

Based on the way this was handled we suspect it was part of an unsolicited
offer by the buyer.

If an organization decided to sell off 1/4 of it's assets and start a
charitable giving process, the first thing done would be define the charitable
giving areas and process.  Get your house in order, build up a board full of
talented people aligned with this new mission, and then effect the sale, no?

Considering ARDC is only giving to IRS approved 501c3 organizations, the sale
of the part of the space dedicated to non-US use (44.128.0.0/9) doesn't seem
right.  Seems like if you're going to sell space not for use in the US, you
should have a plan to benefit those who it was taken from, no?

The first inkling of any of this was reverse DNS for 44/8 users was broken.
Mail was rejected, and people started to ask questions.  There was no
consultation of anyone with technical clue on this.  Had there been, we could
have prevented a 5+ day outage.

I think we all get that '44.in-addr.arpa. NS $SERVERS' would need to move to
the next byte boundary in configuration.  Sure, it's 192 new records that need
to be made at ARIN, and even if they can't script it, it's an hour or two of
typing in the ARIN portal.

Based on the absolute secrecy this was done with and the lack of process or
thinking that went into it, I have to think it was an unsolicited bid, and
likely negotiated by ARDC personal lacking real-world business savvy.

>> And with all due respect to Jon (and I mean that sincerely), what did
>> it/does it really mean that "Jon gave $PERSON the space for $REASON" 30
>> years later? Jon was a brilliant 

Re: 44/8

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jul 26, 2019, at 21:59 , Doug Barton  wrote:
> 
> Responding to no one in particular, and not representing views of any current 
> or former employer ...
> 
> I find all of this hullabaloo to be ... fascinating. A little background to 
> frame my comments below. I was GM of the IANA in the early 2000's, I held a 
> tech license from 1994 through 2004 (I gave it up because life changed, and I 
> no longer had time; but I still have all my toys, err, I mean, gear); and I 
> have known two of the ARDC board members and one of the advisors listed at 
> https://www.ampr.org/amprnet/  for over 
> fifteen years. I consider them all friends, and trust their judgement 
> explicitly. One of them I've known for over 20 years, and consider a close 
> and very dear friend. 
> 
> There have been a number of points over the past 30 years where anyone who 
> genuinely cared about this space could have used any number of mechanisms to 
> raise concerns over how it's been managed, and by whom. I cannot help but 
> think that some of this current sound and fury is an excuse to express 
> righteous indignation for its own sake. The folks involved with ARDC have 
> been caring for the space for a long time. From my perspective, seeing the 
> writing on the wall regarding the upcoming friction around IPv4 space as an 
> asset with monetary value increasing exponentially, they took quite 
> reasonable steps to create a legal framework to ensure that their ability to 
> continue managing the space would be protected. Some of you may remember that 
> other groups, like the IETF, were taking similar steps before during and 
> after that same time frame. Sure, you can complain about what was done, how 
> it was done, etc.; but where were you then? Are you sure that at least part 
> of your anger isn't due to the fact that all of these things have happened 
> over the last 20 years, and you had no idea they were happening? 
> 

Certainly part of my anger is that I did not know some of them were happening.

However, most of my anger is around the fact that:
1.  It never in a million years would have occurred to me that 
these people who I also consider friends and also trust explicitly
would take this particular action without significant prior 
(and much wider) consultation with the amateur radio community.

2.  I believe this was done quietly and carefully orchestrated 
specifically to avoid any risk of successful backlash by the time
the community became aware of this particular intended action.

If you want to say shame on us for trusting these people and not noticing the 
severe corporate governance problems with ARDC until
they took this particular action, then I suppose that’s a fair comment.
> So let's talk a little about what "stewardship" means. Many folks have 
> complained about how ARDC has not done a good job of $X function that 
> stewards of the space should perform. Do you think having some money in the 
> bank will help contribute to their ability to do that? Has anyone looked at 
> how much of the space is actually being used now, and what percentage 
> reduction in available space carving out a /10 actually represents? And 
> nowadays when IPv6 is readily available essentially "for free," how much is 
> the amateur community actually being affected by this? 
> 
All of those are good questions. I don’t have data to answer any of them other 
than that removing a /10 from a /8 is obviously a 25% reduction in the total 
space, so clearly a somewhat larger (though I don’t know by how much) reduction 
in available space since available space is some fraction of the remaining 1.5 
/9s.
> And with all due respect to Jon (and I mean that sincerely), what did it/does 
> it really mean that "Jon gave $PERSON the space for $REASON" 30 years later? 
> Jon was a brilliant guy, but from what I've been told would also be one of 
> the first to admit when he made a mistake. One of which, and one that he 
> actively campaigned to fix, was the idea of classful address space to start 
> with, and particularly the idea that it was OK to hand out massive chunks of 
> it to anyone who asked. As a former ham I definitely appreciate the concept 
> of them having space to play ... errr, experiment with. But did they ever, 
> really, need a /8? Historically, what percentage of that space has ever 
> actually been used? And as Dave Conrad pointed out, given all of the 
> "historical" allocations that have been revisited and/or repurposed already, 
> is taking another look at 44/8 really that far out of line? 
> 
Taking another look is not at all out of line. Discarding 25% of it before 
letting the community in question on a broader scale take a look is absolutely 
very far out of line IMHO.
> Now all that said, if any of my friends had asked me how I thought news of 
> this sale should have been handled, I would have told them that this reaction 
> 

Re: 44/8

[Dylan Ambauen]

Shall we change the subject to 44/9?

Yes +1 Joe and Owen. HamWAN.org is a fantastic example. There are others in
Miami and BC. Pnwdigital.net trunks MotoTrbo DMR repeaters over HamWan.

44net is a wonderful resource. Thank you Brian Kantor and John Hayes and
all the other AMPR volunteers.

Dylan Ambauen
KI7SBI


On Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 07:19 Joe Hamelin  wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:46 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:
>
>> Not entirely true. A lot of 44/8 subnets are used for transporting
>> amateur radio information across the internet and/or for certain limited
>> applications linking amateur radio and the internet.
>>
>
> See HamWAN.org for the Seattle area multi-megabit ham network on 44/8
> space.
>  --
> Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, +1 (360) 474-7474
>
>

Re: Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8)

[Stephen Satchell]

On 7/27/19 2:18 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> something is broken on the nanog list.  usually we have this discussion
> twice a year.  this time it may have been a couple of years gap.  what
> broke?


44/8.  Sucked up all the oxygen.

Re: Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8)

[Randy Bush]

something is broken on the nanog list.  usually we have this discussion
twice a year.  this time it may have been a couple of years gap.  what
broke?

randy

Re: Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8)

[johnl]

In article <23868.39953.398906.559...@gargle.gargle.howl> you write:
>Not particularly interested in arguing for using Class E space but
>this "not compatible" reasoning would seem to have applied to IPv6 in
>the early 2000s (whatever, pick an earlier date when little supported
>IPv6) just as well, pretty much.

Right.  A point that's been made about a hundred times already is that the 
effort
to add class E to the IPv4 space is the same as the effort to support IPv6, so
why waste time with class E?

R's,
John

Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8)

[bzs]

On July 26, 2019 at 21:19 do...@dougbarton.us (Doug Barton) wrote:
 > All of this, plus what Fred Baker said upthread.
 > 
 > When I was running the IANA in the early 2000's we discussed this issue with
 > many different experts, hardware company reps, etc. Not only was there a
 > software issue that was insurmountable for all practical purposes (pretty 
 > much
 > every TCP/IP stack has "Class E space is not unicast" built in), in the case 
 > of
 > basically all network hardware, this limitation is also in the silicon. So 
 > even
 > if it were possible to fix the software issue, it would not be possible to 
 > fix
 > the hardware issue without replacing pretty much all the hardware.
 > 

Not particularly interested in arguing for using Class E space but
this "not compatible" reasoning would seem to have applied to IPv6 in
the early 2000s (whatever, pick an earlier date when little supported
IPv6) just as well, pretty much.

So in and of itself it's not a show-stopper. Just a matter of whether
there's an overall positive ROI.

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Re: Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8)

[Doug Barton]

On 2019-07-26 11:01 PM, William Herrin wrote:

On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 10:36 PM Doug Barton > wrote:
> So I'll just say this ... if you think that the advice I received 
from all of the many people I spoke to (all of whom are/were a lot 
smarter than me on this topic) was wrong, and that putting the same 
LOE into IPv6 adoption that it would have taken to make Class E usable 
was a better investment


Doug,

"Better investment?" What on earth makes you think it's a zero-sum game?


Because for all of us there are only 24 hours in a day, and the people 
who would have needed to do the work to make it happen were telling me 
that they were going to put the work into IPv6 instead, because it has a 
future. As Owen pointed out, no matter how much IPv4 space you added, 
all it would do would be delay the inevitable.


"Same level of effort?" A reasonable level of effort was adding the 
word "unicast" to the word "reserved" in the standards. Seven letters. 
A space. Maybe a comma.

I don't recall seeing your draft on that  refresh my memory?
That would have unblocked everybody else to apply however much or 
little effort they cared to. Here we are nearly 20 years later and had 
you not fumbled that ball 240/4 might be broadly enough supported to 
usefully replace the word "reserved" with something else.
You give me /way /too much credit on that. I was the reed tasting the 
wind on this topic. I was not the wind. I (like every other IANA 
manager) had exactly zero authority to say, "You SHALL NOT pursue making 
Class E space usable for anything!" The opportunity existed then, and 
still exists today, for anyone to make it work.
You're right about one thing: you won't be able to convince me that 
your conclusion was rational. No matter how many smart people say a 
stupid thing, it's still a stupid thing.


So as my last word on the topic, I return you to the point above, that 
whatever the discussion was 20 years ago, there is still no workable 
solution.


If you'd like another perspective, here is a reasonably good summary:

https://packetlife.net/blog/2010/oct/14/ipv4-exhaustion-what-about-class-e-addresses/

Doug

Re: Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8)

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 10:36 PM Doug Barton  wrote:
> So I'll just say this ... if you think that the advice I received from
all of the many people I spoke to (all of whom are/were a lot smarter than
me on this topic) was wrong, and that putting the same LOE into IPv6
adoption that it would have taken to make Class E usable was a better
investment

Doug,

"Better investment?" What on earth makes you think it's a zero-sum game?

"Same level of effort?" A reasonable level of effort was adding the word
"unicast" to the word "reserved" in the standards. Seven letters. A space.
Maybe a comma. That would have unblocked everybody else to apply however
much or little effort they cared to. Here we are nearly 20 years later and
had you not fumbled that ball 240/4 might be broadly enough supported to
usefully replace the word "reserved" with something else.

You're right about one thing: you won't be able to convince me that your
conclusion was rational. No matter how many smart people say a stupid
thing, it's still a stupid thing.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8)

[Doug Barton]

On 2019-07-26 10:07 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 9:21 PM Doug Barton > wrote:
> When I was running the IANA in the early 2000's we discussed this 
issue with many different experts, hardware company reps, etc. Not 
only was there a software issue that was insurmountable for all 
practical purposes (pretty much every TCP/IP stack has "Class E space 
is not unicast" built in), in the case of basically all network 
hardware, this limitation is also in the silicon. So even if it were 
possible to fix the software issue, it would not be possible to fix 
the hardware issue without replacing pretty much all the hardware.


> So the decision was made to start tooting the IPv4 runout horns in 
the hopes that folks would start taking conservation of the space 
seriously (which happened more often than not), and accelerate the 
adoption of IPv6. *cough*


Hi Doug,

That's what you wrote. Here's what I read:

"We decided keep this mile of road closed because you can't drive it 
anywhere unless the toll road operators in the next 10 miles open 
their roads too. What's that you say? Your house is a quarter mile 
down this road?** La la la I can't hear you. Look, just use the shiny 
new road we built over in the next state instead. Move your house 
there. The roads are better."


** Not every unicast use of 240/4 would require broad adoption of the 
change. Your reasoning that it does is so absurd as to merit outright 
mockery.


> So no, there were exactly zero "IPv6 loons" involved in this 
decision. :-)


No, when I said IPv6 loonies, reasoning of this character was pretty 
much what I was talking about.


So leaving aside how interesting I find the fact that you snipped the 
part of my comments that you did, the utter absurdity of your toll road 
analogy shows me that I will not be able to convince you of anything.


So I'll just say this ... if you think that the advice I received from 
all of the many people I spoke to (all of whom are/were a lot smarter 
than me on this topic) was wrong, and that putting the same LOE into 
IPv6 adoption that it would have taken to make Class E usable was a 
better investment because we're not running out of IPv6 any time soon, 
then you have a golden opportunity. Go forth and prove me wrong. Go 
rally support from all of the people and companies that you need in 
order to make any part of  Class E usable for any purpose (even, as you 
point it, if it's not for global unicast). If you're right, and I'm 
wrong, your income potential is essentially limitless.


Or, look at it from another perspective. If you're right, then why, in 
the last almost 15 years, has no one figured out how to do it yet? 
Including the companies whose mission is to sell us new hardware, and 
force us into contracts for software upgrades in order to keep said 
hardware on the 'net?


It's easy to sit back in the cheap seats and squawk about how "they" are 
out to get you. I'd be far more impressed if you put your money (or 
time, or effort) where your mouth is.


Doug

Re: Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8)

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 9:21 PM Doug Barton  wrote:
> When I was running the IANA in the early 2000's we discussed this issue
with many different experts, hardware company reps, etc. Not only was there
a software issue that was insurmountable for all practical purposes (pretty
much every TCP/IP stack has "Class E space is not unicast" built in), in
the case of basically all network hardware, this limitation is also in the
silicon. So even if it were possible to fix the software issue, it would
not be possible to fix the hardware issue without replacing pretty much all
the hardware.

> So the decision was made to start tooting the IPv4 runout horns in the
hopes that folks would start taking conservation of the space seriously
(which happened more often than not), and accelerate the adoption of IPv6.
*cough*

Hi Doug,

That's what you wrote. Here's what I read:

"We decided keep this mile of road closed because you can't drive it
anywhere unless the toll road operators in the next 10 miles open their
roads too. What's that you say? Your house is a quarter mile down this
road?** La la la I can't hear you. Look, just use the shiny new road we
built over in the next state instead. Move your house there. The roads are
better."

** Not every unicast use of 240/4 would require broad adoption of the
change. Your reasoning that it does is so absurd as to merit outright
mockery.

> So no, there were exactly zero "IPv6 loons" involved in this decision.
:-)

No, when I said IPv6 loonies, reasoning of this character was pretty much
what I was talking about.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: 44/8

[Doug Barton]

Responding to no one in particular, and not representing views of any 
current or former employer ...


I find all of this hullabaloo to be ... fascinating. A little background 
to frame my comments below. I was GM of the IANA in the early 2000's, I 
held a tech license from 1994 through 2004 (I gave it up because life 
changed, and I no longer had time; but I still have all my toys, err, I 
mean, gear); and I have known two of the ARDC board members and one of 
the advisors listed at https://www.ampr.org/amprnet/ for over fifteen 
years. I consider them all friends, and trust their judgement 
explicitly. One of them I've known for over 20 years, and consider a 
close and very dear friend.


There have been a number of points over the past 30 years where anyone 
who genuinely cared about this space could have used any number of 
mechanisms to raise concerns over how it's been managed, and by whom. I 
cannot help but think that some of this current sound and fury is an 
excuse to express righteous indignation for its own sake. The folks 
involved with ARDC have been caring for the space for a long time. From 
my perspective, seeing the writing on the wall regarding the upcoming 
friction around IPv4 space as an asset with monetary value increasing 
exponentially, they took quite reasonable steps to create a legal 
framework to ensure that their ability to continue managing the space 
would be protected. Some of you may remember that other groups, like the 
IETF, were taking similar steps before during and after that same time 
frame. Sure, you can complain about what was done, how it was done, 
etc.; but where were you then? Are you sure that at least part of your 
anger isn't due to the fact that all of these things have happened over 
the last 20 years, and you had no idea they were happening?


So let's talk a little about what "stewardship" means. Many folks have 
complained about how ARDC has not done a good job of $X function that 
stewards of the space should perform. Do you think having some money in 
the bank will help contribute to their ability to do that? Has anyone 
looked at how much of the space is actually being used now, and what 
percentage reduction in available space carving out a /10 actually 
represents? And nowadays when IPv6 is readily available essentially "for 
free," how much is the amateur community actually being affected by this?


And with all due respect to Jon (and I mean that sincerely), what did 
it/does it really mean that "Jon gave $PERSON the space for $REASON" 30 
years later? Jon was a brilliant guy, but from what I've been told would 
also be one of the first to admit when he made a mistake. One of which, 
and one that he actively campaigned to fix, was the idea of classful 
address space to start with, and particularly the idea that it was OK to 
hand out massive chunks of it to anyone who asked. As a former ham I 
definitely appreciate the concept of them having space to play ... errr, 
experiment with. But did they ever, /really, /need a /8? Historically, 
what percentage of that space has ever actually been used? And as Dave 
Conrad pointed out, given all of the "historical" allocations that have 
been revisited and/or repurposed already, is taking another look at 44/8 
really that far out of line?


Now all that said, if any of my friends had asked me how I thought news 
of this sale should have been handled, I would have told them that this 
reaction that we're seeing now is 100% predictable, and while it could 
never be eliminated entirely it could be limited in scope and ferocity 
by getting ahead of the message. At minimum when the transfer occurred. 
But that doesn't change anything about my opinion that the sale itself 
was totally reasonable, done by reasonable people, and in keeping with 
the concept of being good stewards of the space.


hope this helps,

Doug

Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8)

[Doug Barton]

On 2019-07-22 6:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

On Jul 22, 2019, at 12:15 , Naslund, Steve > wrote:


I think the Class E block has been covered before.  There were two 
reasons to not re-allocate it.
1.A lot of existing code base does not know how to handle those 
addresses and may refuse to route them or will otherwise mishandle them.
2.It was decided that squeezing every bit of space out of the v4 
allocations only served to delay the desired v6 deployment.



Close, but there is a subtle error…

2.It was decided that the effort to modify each and every IP stack in 
order to facilitate use of this relatively small block (16 /8s being 
evaluated against a global
run rate at the time of roughly 2.5 /8s per month, mostly to RIPE and 
APNIC) vs. putting that same effort into modifying each and every IP 
stack to support
IPv6 was an equation of very small benefit for slightly smaller cost. 
(Less than 8 additional months of IPv4 free pool vs. hopefully making 
IPv6 deployable

before IPv4 ran out).


All of this, plus what Fred Baker said upthread.

When I was running the IANA in the early 2000's we discussed this issue 
with many different experts, hardware company reps, etc. Not only was 
there a software issue that was insurmountable for all practical 
purposes (pretty much every TCP/IP stack has "Class E space is not 
unicast" built in), in the case of basically all network hardware, this 
limitation is also in the silicon. So even if it were possible to fix 
the software issue, it would not be possible to fix the hardware issue 
without replacing pretty much all the hardware.


... and even if some magical forces appeared and gave every open source 
software project, and every company, and every consumer in the developed 
world the means and opportunity to do all of the above; doing so would 
have left the developing world out in the cold, since in many cases 
there is reliance on older, second/third/fourth hand equipment that they 
could never afford to replace.


So the decision was made to start tooting the IPv4 runout horns in the 
hopes that folks would start taking conservation of the space seriously 
(which happened more often than not), and accelerate the adoption of 
IPv6. *cough*


Personally, I also pushed to bring IPv6 support from ICANN up to par, 
including going the last mile on putting the IPv6 addresses of the root 
servers in the zone, creating and socializing a long-term plan for 
allocating to the RIRs, etc.


So no, there were exactly zero "IPv6 loons" involved in this decision. :-)

Doug

Re: 44/8

[Doug Barton]

On 2019-07-23 10:43 AM, William Herrin wrote:

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 7:32 AM Naslund, Steve > wrote:


In defense of John and ARIN, if you did not recognize that ARDC
represented an authority for this resource, who would be?


The American Radio Relay League (ARRL) is THE organization which 
represents Hams in regulatory matters in the U.S. and is well known to 
Hams worldwide.


You don't have to look very far. Just ask any ham.


The Internet, and amateur radio, both transcend the US.

Re: 240/4 (Re: 44/8)

[Greg Skinner via NANOG]

> On Jul 22, 2019, at 9:15 PM, Ross Tajvar  wrote:
> 
>> Editor's note: This draft has not been submitted to any formal
>> process.  It may change significantly if it is ever submitted.
>> You are reading it because we trust you and we value your
>> opinions.  *Please do not recirculate it.*  Please join us in
>> testing patches and equipment!
> 
> (emphasis mine)
> 
> Interesting choice to host it in a public Github repo, then...
> 

Funny, that …

BTW, there are a few missing links in the References that some of you may find 
useful:

[IEN48]Cerf, V., "The CATENET MODEL FOR INTERNETWORKING", 1978,


[IETF-13]  Gross, P., Bowers, K., "IETF Proceedings", 1989,


[IHML] Many, T., "Internet History Mailing list", 2019,


Dave Täht and John Gilmore raised issues discussed in the draft in the February 
2019 

 and March 2019 
 
internet-history list archives, respectively.

FWIW, here are some additional resources:

IPv4 Unicast Extensions Netdevconf preso, March 2019 


The IPv4 Cleanup Project GitHub repo 


—gregbo

Re: Ancient history (was Re: 44/8)

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 12:43 PM David Conrad  wrote:
> In some cases, there was a ‘caretaker’ assigned (ARRL for 44/8 and @Home
> for 24/8) who acted as a pseudo-registry: they did (or at least were
supposed
> to do) sub-assignments for entities that met (IANA- and pseudo-registry-)
> defined criteria.

Hi David,

Did you mean to say ARRL here? If you did, can you explain how 44/8 ended
up with an organization unaffiliated with ARRL? One that I'll note:

a. Has no public participation (unlike ARRL which has open membership and
elections)
b. Was established only this decade at ARIN's urging
c. Is a 501(c)3 organization which has announced but not yet delivered
plans for reducing its administrative overhead from 100%.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Ancient history (was Re: 44/8)

[David Conrad]

Jimmy,

I have been staying out of this particular food fight, but speaking purely in a 
personal capacity as someone who had a small role in early addressing stuff 
ages ago, I did want to clarify a couple of things:

On Jul 23, 2019, at 11:05 AM, Jimmy Hess  wrote:
> People sought an
> allocation from IANA originally,  but that does not give IANA nor
> any contact listed by IANA "ownership" or  "management" authority
> over usage of this IP address space  outside of their registry which
> is supposed to accurately cover the internet: but the AMPRnet is Not
> a block of networks on the internet,  and not under the purview
> of IETF or IANA, anyways  ---  its just a community that uses
> TCP/IP mostly in isolated discrete networks which can be neither
> allocated,  nor managed,  nor get their individual assignments
> within 44/8 from any central authority.

Yes and no.

There were actually a number of “class As” that Postel directed to be assigned 
based on layer 2 technology, e.g., 14/8 for X.25, 24/8 (I believe) for IP over 
CATV, 44/8 for IP over amateur radio, maybe a block assigned for IP over 
satellite (4/8? I don’t remember).  In some cases, there was a ‘caretaker’ 
assigned (ARRL for 44/8 and @Home for 24/8) who acted as a pseudo-registry: 
they did (or at least were supposed to do) sub-assignments for entities that 
met (IANA- and pseudo-registry-) defined criteria.  However, the informal 
assignments were, like all assignments of the day, based on the assumption that 
the addresses were supposed to be used to provide IP networking and if the 
addresses weren’t so used, they were to be returned to IANA. This was actually 
put in practice with 14/8 (which unfortunately didn’t have a ‘caretaker’ so we 
at IANA had to try to track down the remaining IP over X.25 users starting 
around 2007 or so IIRC — a bit challenging, but ultimately accomplished). I 
have vague memories of asking Brian Kantor (as the assignee in the IANA 
registry) about returning 44/8 back when we were cleaning up 14/8 but my 
recollection was that I was informed it would be too hard given the number, 
distribution, and global nature of the sub-assignments.

In any event, this is largely irrelevant: there weren’t any contracts or other 
written agreements, it was all informal and based on folks doing the right 
thing, without fully agreed upon terms of what the “right thing” was (other 
than “for the good of the Internet” I suppose).

> In a way; it just means the IANA registry data became
> corrupted/Less accurate  Due to IANA's failure to clearly
> state a policy for the maintenance of the allocations and/or
> ARDC  "converting"  ownership or  being allowed to take
> up a false pretense of ownership of the registry allocation.

Err, no.

It’s inappropriate to blame IANA here. IANA has a clear policy: management of 
IP addresses was delegated on a regional basis starting with RFC 1366/1466 
around 1990, then RFC 2050 and finally RFC 7020. The existing IANA IPv4 
registry largely consists of pointers to the RIRs as the delegatees of 
responsibility for the address space. If you have concerns with address policy, 
the proper place to raise those concerns is with the RIRs (and in the case of 
44/8, ARIN).

Regards,
-drc



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: 44/8

[Jay R. Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "Randy Bush" 

> my deep sympathies go out to those folk with real work to do whose mail
> user agents do not have a `delete thread` key sequence.

For some people, Randy, this *is* real work, even if they're not getting
paid for it.

And didn't you, like, co-author procmail?  :-)

Cheers,
-- jra

-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: 44/8

[Joe Hamelin]

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:46 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:

> Not entirely true. A lot of 44/8 subnets are used for transporting amateur
> radio information across the internet and/or for certain limited
> applications linking amateur radio and the internet.
>

See HamWAN.org for the Seattle area multi-megabit ham network on 44/8 space.
 --
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, +1 (360) 474-7474

Re: 44/8

[Matt Brennan]

In addition to my day job I also run IT for a 501(c)(3) ham "club" that
does amateur radio based public service and emergency communications. Our
annual cash donations are about $100. We could never afford an IPv6
allocation or an AS number. I wish we could because I'd love to use some of
the AMPRNET space for some of our operations. Our ISP doesn't support IPv6
yet, so I won't even get into that discussion.

While we don't have cash, we frequently get donations in the form of [used]
equipment. Our entire network backbone is Cisco. Our radio systems are
almost exclusively Motorola public safety grade hardware. Our Internet
connection is paid for by a served agency. People are happy to donate their
time, services, and hardware to us; just not cash. Saying that not having
cash on hand means you don't have the resources to do packet radio is not
necessarily true.

-Matt, NM1B


On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 12:44 PM Naslund, Steve 
wrote:

> So, if ARIN allocates a v6 assignment to ARDC how do you plan to use it
> without a router or BGP.  Whether it's v4 or v6 you need to route it
> somewhere.  If you have a PC, you can have a router and if you don't have a
> PC you probably don't need to worry about any of this.   If your club can't
> afford the address allocation then you are probably in too expensive a
> hobby.  That is one of the cheaper things you need to get to do radio data.
>
> Steven Naslund
> Chicago IL
>
> >Yeah because v6 only is the answer plus tour assuming all of these clubs
> have routers and BGP and the money to get an allocation and ASN
>
>
>
>

Re: 44/8

[Hansen, Christoffer]

On 23/07/2019 02:23, Michel Py wrote:
> This is the last attempt that I remember : 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-02

Of interest can be :
https://www.netdevconf.org/0x13/session.html?talk-ipv4-unicast-expansions



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: 44/8

[James Downs]

> On Jul 23, 2019, at 18:44, Owen DeLong  wrote:
> 
> Not entirely true. A lot of 44/8 subnets are used for transporting amateur 
> radio information across the internet and/or for certain limited applications 
> linking amateur radio and the internet. 

In the mid 90's we (an ISP) announced the space for WI's packet community. If 
it didn't need internet connectivity, you wouldn't need the IP addresses, 
necessarily.

Also, from the AMPR website: https://www.ampr.org/about/

"We don’t sell addresses; you might consider an AMPRNet allocation to be in the 
nature of an extended loan of IP space, which is, of course, subject to our 
Terms of Service."

And of course, from: https://www.ampr.org/terms-of-service/

> 5. What You may not do
> 
> You may NOT sell, exchange, transfer, or otherwise obtain anything of value 
> for the address(es). You are not permitted to use the address(es) for 
> commercial purposes, nor in a manner which would be to the detriment of the 
> AMPRNet or to Amateur Radio.
> 
> 6. What You are agreeing to
> 
> All address(es) licensed to You remain the sole and exclusive property of 
> ARDC. You do not obtain any rights, title, or interest in the address(es) nor 
> in the AMPRNet.
> 
> You may not assign any monetary value to the addresses.
...
> 8. Definitions
> 
> “Amateur”, “ham”, “operator”, means a person or group licensed under the 
> terms of the Amateur Radio Service as defined by the International 
> Telecommunication Union (ITU) as implemented by their country’s government, 
> e.g., in the USA, under 47CFR97.
> 
> “AMPRNet” means the network 44/8; that is, all Internet IP addresses from 
> 44.0.0.0 through 44.255.255.255.

And also from: http://wiki.ampr.org/wiki/Main_Page

> Since its allocation to Amateur Radio in the mid-1980's, Internet network 44 
> (44.0.0.0/8), known as the AMPRNet™,
...
>   • This page was last edited on 5 April 2014, at 04:32.

They certainly seem to be claiming to have ownership of something not assigned 
to them, and in conflict with their own stated TOS.

What seems additionally strange is that according to the addressing agreement 
from 1986, according to wikipedia, "The allocation plan agreed in late-1986 
mandated 44.0/9 (~8 million addresses) for use within the United States, under 
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations;[6] and mandated 44.128/9 
(~8 million addresses) for the Rest-of-World deployment, outside of FCC 
regulations.[6]"

Re: 44/8

[Owen DeLong]

Not entirely true. A lot of 44/8 subnets are used for transporting amateur 
radio information across the internet and/or for certain limited applications 
linking amateur radio and the internet. 

Owen


> On Jul 23, 2019, at 11:05, Jimmy Hess  wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 9:57 AM Naslund, Steve  wrote:
>> How about this?  If you guys think your organization (club, group of friends,
>> neighborhood association, whatever...) got screwed over by the ARDC, then
>> why not apply for your own v6 allocation.  You would then have complete
> 
> They could likely just use Link-Local V6 space if they wanted.
> Digital linking using space from the 44/8 block would very likely
> often be at 1200 or 9600 baud for many uses.  Each bit of overhead
> expensive,  and IPv6 with its much greater overhead would seem
> uniquely Unsuitable and not a viable replacement for IPv4 usage in cases.
> 
> I'm curious how does a "Point of Contact"  change from a Point of Contact
> to the general organization, to "Owner of a resource"?
> My general assumption is one does not follow from the other --- for
> example, Amazon might designate an Admin POC for their /10,  But
> by no means does that confer a right to that individual to auction
> Amazon's /10,  sell the block,  and decide how the sales proceeds will be 
> used.
> 
> Its not even that the registry should allow this and say "Well, Amazon,
> tough.. if you didn't want it sold by $POC or their successor against your
> wishes,  then you should have appointed a better POC."
> I would anticipate the registry requiring legal documents from $OrgName
> signed by however many people to verify complete agency over $OrgName
> or someone making a representation;  not just sending an e-mail
> or pushing a button.
> 
> And if there is no organization name,   then it may just be that
> there isn't a single person in the world  who has been vested
> with authorization to represent an item registered "for use by a community"
> or "the public in general" in matters like that.
> 
> 
> And why should any one organization get to monetize AMPRnet and
> decide the use of any funds for monetization?   They may be a public
> benefit, but how do you establish they are the _right_ and _only_
> public benefit,  that the public deems the most proper for advancing
> development for the greatest public good in IP/digital networking
> communications?
> 
> The mention of  "Scholarships" and "Grants" to be decided by the
> board of the entity that seemed to unilaterally decide to  "Sell" a
> shared resource that was provided for free -  Sounds like an
> idea biased towards "academics" and certain kinds of researchers
> -- as in more most likely university academics --- sounds suspect.
> Perhaps  Scholarships mostly benefit an individual,  and Grants could
> be decided by an entity more well-known and reputable to the
> community such as one vetted by IARU or ARRL, anyways.
> 
> Usage from the 44/8 space chosen is not necessarily co-ordinated with nor
> were AMPR networks created within 44/8 ever  required to be approved or
> co-ordinated by any central registry contacts that were shown for the block,
> and the AMPR users can simply continue ignoring any IANA changes to 44/8;
> just like you probably would if  some random contact on a registry record
> decided they were owner, and auctioned off   "192.168.0.0/17"  reducing
> the shared 192.168 allocation to 192.168.128.0/17  only.
> 
> They may simply go by the decisions of whichever user, vendor, or
> experimenter makes the linking technology in question for deciding the
> IP address co-ordination ---   For example,  the Icom or Yaesu network
> may designate their own addressing authority for users of their digital
> linking system,  and there is a good chance they already do.
> 
> I think there is a false belief here in the first place that the community
> in question which is separate from the internet relies upon IANA or ARIN
> registry information to continue existing or using address space;  Or that the
> contact has any "ownership",  "resource holdership",  or  "network management"
> purpose,  for anything related to 44/8  other than a purpose of
> co-ordination  for
> a SUBSET of the likely AMPRnet  44/8  users  when considering
> CERTAIN applications of AMPRnet  where interoperability with internet was
> a goal.
> 
> And 44/8 commonly for discrete isolated networks;  similar to RFC1918,
> But predating RFC1918  by almost two decades.Consider that
> 10.0.0.0/8   COULD have been a substitute for many 44/8 applications.
> 
> My understanding is this 44/8 allocation predates the public internet;
> and its normal everyday usage is completely separate from public internet
> IP having been actually utilized on this space first.   People sought an
> allocation from IANA originally,  but that does not give IANA nor
> any contact listed by IANA "ownership" or  "management" authority
> over usage of this IP address space  outside of their registry which

Re: 44/8

[Jimmy Hess]

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 9:57 AM Naslund, Steve  wrote:
> How about this?  If you guys think your organization (club, group of friends,
> neighborhood association, whatever...) got screwed over by the ARDC, then
> why not apply for your own v6 allocation.  You would then have complete

They could likely just use Link-Local V6 space if they wanted.
Digital linking using space from the 44/8 block would very likely
often be at 1200 or 9600 baud for many uses.  Each bit of overhead
expensive,  and IPv6 with its much greater overhead would seem
uniquely Unsuitable and not a viable replacement for IPv4 usage in cases.

I'm curious how does a "Point of Contact"  change from a Point of Contact
to the general organization, to "Owner of a resource"?
My general assumption is one does not follow from the other --- for
example, Amazon might designate an Admin POC for their /10,  But
by no means does that confer a right to that individual to auction
Amazon's /10,  sell the block,  and decide how the sales proceeds will be used.

Its not even that the registry should allow this and say "Well, Amazon,
tough.. if you didn't want it sold by $POC or their successor against your
wishes,  then you should have appointed a better POC."
I would anticipate the registry requiring legal documents from $OrgName
signed by however many people to verify complete agency over $OrgName
or someone making a representation;  not just sending an e-mail
or pushing a button.

And if there is no organization name,   then it may just be that
there isn't a single person in the world  who has been vested
with authorization to represent an item registered "for use by a community"
or "the public in general" in matters like that.


And why should any one organization get to monetize AMPRnet and
decide the use of any funds for monetization?   They may be a public
benefit, but how do you establish they are the _right_ and _only_
public benefit,  that the public deems the most proper for advancing
development for the greatest public good in IP/digital networking
communications?

The mention of  "Scholarships" and "Grants" to be decided by the
board of the entity that seemed to unilaterally decide to  "Sell" a
shared resource that was provided for free -  Sounds like an
idea biased towards "academics" and certain kinds of researchers
-- as in more most likely university academics --- sounds suspect.
Perhaps  Scholarships mostly benefit an individual,  and Grants could
be decided by an entity more well-known and reputable to the
community such as one vetted by IARU or ARRL, anyways.

Usage from the 44/8 space chosen is not necessarily co-ordinated with nor
were AMPR networks created within 44/8 ever  required to be approved or
co-ordinated by any central registry contacts that were shown for the block,
and the AMPR users can simply continue ignoring any IANA changes to 44/8;
just like you probably would if  some random contact on a registry record
decided they were owner, and auctioned off   "192.168.0.0/17"  reducing
the shared 192.168 allocation to 192.168.128.0/17  only.

They may simply go by the decisions of whichever user, vendor, or
experimenter makes the linking technology in question for deciding the
IP address co-ordination ---   For example,  the Icom or Yaesu network
may designate their own addressing authority for users of their digital
linking system,  and there is a good chance they already do.

I think there is a false belief here in the first place that the community
in question which is separate from the internet relies upon IANA or ARIN
registry information to continue existing or using address space;  Or that the
contact has any "ownership",  "resource holdership",  or  "network management"
purpose,  for anything related to 44/8  other than a purpose of
co-ordination  for
a SUBSET of the likely AMPRnet  44/8  users  when considering
CERTAIN applications of AMPRnet  where interoperability with internet was
a goal.

And 44/8 commonly for discrete isolated networks;  similar to RFC1918,
But predating RFC1918  by almost two decades.Consider that
10.0.0.0/8   COULD have been a substitute for many 44/8 applications.

My understanding is this 44/8 allocation predates the public internet;
and its normal everyday usage is completely separate from public internet
IP having been actually utilized on this space first.   People sought an
allocation from IANA originally,  but that does not give IANA nor
any contact listed by IANA "ownership" or  "management" authority
over usage of this IP address space  outside of their registry which
is supposed to accurately cover the internet: but the AMPRnet is Not
a block of networks on the internet,  and not under the purview
of IETF or IANA, anyways  ---  its just a community that uses
TCP/IP mostly in isolated discrete networks which can be neither
allocated,  nor managed,  nor get their individual assignments
within 44/8 from any central authority.

Although ARDC provides an option to do so --- these 

Re: 44/8

[William Herrin]

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 7:32 AM Naslund, Steve  wrote:

> In defense of John and ARIN, if you did not recognize that ARDC
> represented an authority for this resource, who would be?
>

The American Radio Relay League (ARRL) is THE organization which represents
Hams in regulatory matters in the U.S. and is well known to Hams worldwide.

You don't have to look very far. Just ask any ham.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

RE: 44/8

[Naslund, Steve]

So, if ARIN allocates a v6 assignment to ARDC how do you plan to use it without 
a router or BGP.  Whether it's v4 or v6 you need to route it somewhere.  If you 
have a PC, you can have a router and if you don't have a PC you probably don't 
need to worry about any of this.   If your club can't afford the address 
allocation then you are probably in too expensive a hobby.  That is one of the 
cheaper things you need to get to do radio data.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL

>Yeah because v6 only is the answer plus tour assuming all of these clubs have 
>routers and BGP and the money to get an allocation and ASN

Re: 44/8

[Matt Harris]

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 10:05 AM Nathan Brookfield <
nathan.brookfi...@simtronic.com.au> wrote:

> Yeah because v6 only is the answer plus tour assuming all of these clubs
> have routers and BGP and the money to get an allocation and ASN
>

If any amateur radio folks want to use a v6 block that's been allocated to
them for amateur radio/digital comms/etc purposes, there are probably
plenty of folks who already have routers/bgp sessions/ASNs who'd be happy
to announce their space for them at no cost. If someone doing so were to
ask me nicely, I really can't think of a reason not to. It doesn't really
cost me anything and no one's pushing enough traffic on ham bands to amount
to enough to even think about the bandwidth usage under most circumstances.
There's plenty of overlap between hams and people who want to support the
hobby, and network operators with resources to spare. And if things don't
work out, since it's your own space, you can take it and go elsewhere if
needed - it can't be sold out from under you.

Additionally, one can run their own bgp with extremely inexpensive gear
these days. Ubiquiti's edgerouters will do it (around $100 USD), or a
whitebox running pfsense or any number of other FOSS operating systems. You
don't need multiple full tables from several providers plus a half-dozen IX
sessions to announce a /48 for ham radio use. That same low-cost gear can
tunnel the space to wherever you need it, too, if needed. Remember, we're
almost always talking about very very low bandwidth applications here on
amateur spectrum.

Re: 44/8

[Nathan Brookfield]

Yeah because v6 only is the answer plus tour assuming all of these clubs have 
routers and BGP and the money to get an allocation and ASN

On 23 Jul 2019, at 22:59, Naslund, Steve  wrote:

How about this?  If you guys think your organization (club, group of friends, 
neighborhood association, whatever...) got screwed over by the ARDC, then why 
not apply for your own v6 allocation.  You would then have complete control 
over its handling and never have to worry about it again.  If you are not sure 
how to get started, visit ARINs website.  It is not that difficult or expensive 
and it would not be hard to justify.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL

> And after 75 messages, nobody has asked the obvious question. When is ARDC 
> going to acquire IPv6 resources on our behalf? Instead being all worried 
> about legacy resources >we're highly underutilizing.
> 
> Ham Radio is supposed to be about pushing the art forward. Let's do that.
> 
> -KC8QAY

RE: 44/8

[Naslund, Steve]

Why bother purchasing space?  CGNAT or v6 would both be better ways to go and 
future proof.  The v4 space you purchase today will be essentially worthless.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL


>I really just want to know how I can purchase some more of that 44. 
>space :)

Re: 44/8

[Matt Hoppes]

I really just want to know how I can purchase some more of that 44. 
space :)


On 7/23/19 10:56 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote:

How about this?  If you guys think your organization (club, group of friends, 
neighborhood association, whatever...) got screwed over by the ARDC, then why 
not apply for your own v6 allocation.  You would then have complete control 
over its handling and never have to worry about it again.  If you are not sure 
how to get started, visit ARINs website.  It is not that difficult or expensive 
and it would not be hard to justify.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL


And after 75 messages, nobody has asked the obvious question. When is ARDC going 
to acquire IPv6 resources on our behalf? Instead being all worried about legacy 
resources >we're highly underutilizing.

Ham Radio is supposed to be about pushing the art forward. Let's do that.

-KC8QAY

RE: 44/8

[Naslund, Steve]

How about this?  If you guys think your organization (club, group of friends, 
neighborhood association, whatever...) got screwed over by the ARDC, then why 
not apply for your own v6 allocation.  You would then have complete control 
over its handling and never have to worry about it again.  If you are not sure 
how to get started, visit ARINs website.  It is not that difficult or expensive 
and it would not be hard to justify.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL

>And after 75 messages, nobody has asked the obvious question. When is ARDC 
>going to acquire IPv6 resources on our behalf? Instead being all worried about 
>legacy resources >we're highly underutilizing.
>
>Ham Radio is supposed to be about pushing the art forward. Let's do that.
>
>-KC8QAY

RE: 44/8

[Naslund, Steve]

>I can guarantee you that Akamai is very much run by beancounters in addition 
>to engineers. I have first hand experience with that.
>
>I can also assure you that it’s quite unlikely that any of Comcast, Netflix, 
>Facebook, Google, AT, T-Mobile, or Verizon just to name a few of the biggest 
>are managed without >due consideration of input from the bean counters. (I’d 
>bet at each of those companies, the day that engineer beats beancounter in a 
>disagreement is rare, indeed).
>
>Each and every one of those large companies has deployed IPv6. Some to a 
>greater extent than others. Facebook and T-Mo stand out as the prime examples, 
>having gone all->IPv6 in as much of their network as practicable today.
>
>The problem with the approach you are taking to IPv6 cost-benefit analysis is 
>that your claim of no ROI doesn’t actually hold true.
>
>The cost savings from a full-on deployment of IPv6 and moving to IPv4 as a 
>service at the edge can be significant. They are hard to capture without very 
>good cost accounting >and the problem really tends to be that engineers are 
>lousy cost-accountants and good cost accountants have a hard time 
>understanding what IPv6 brings to the table.
>
>It’s also true that some fraction (though now diminishing) of the ROI from a 
>v6 deployment cannot be realized until some other parties also deploy IPv6, 
>but there’s good news >on that front, too… More and more of those parties are 
>realizing the need to deploy IPv6.
>
>Owen

The common denominator for all of the companies listed is the size of their 
deployment.  The carriers needed to handle very large scale mobile networks 
that they could not possibly get a large enough allocation for.  The 
alternative CGN gear would have doubtless been extremely expensive as well.  
They also have the engineering and financial horsepower to hold their suppliers 
to the fire to make all of the devices together well with v6.Another 
advantage they have is that the lifespan of a mobile device and it's 
infrastructure is pretty short so they are not dealing with a lot of legacy 
devices.   It helped a lot that the v4 allocations were drying up at around the 
same time that the mobile networks were in full upgrade mode deploying 4G and 
LTE.

Facebook, Google, and Netflix deployed v6 mostly because there were so many 
mobile devices using it that it could not be ignored.  These are all 
market/financial forces at work, not some pioneering engineering drive.  In the 
corporate world we have to provide a reason to spend money so unless there is a 
business drive to deploy v6, it's not going to happen.  That pressure is 
mounting but not at a breaking point yet.  The two main pressures would be the 
cost of expanding into more v4 space and what your customers want.  The move to 
cloud based services means that the corporate demand for v4 space is actually 
decreasing since they are not hosting as many Internet facing applications as 
they once were.  They don't need to move to v6 since their cloud providers are 
doing it for them.  There is also a move in a lot of corporate networks to get 
away from dedicated circuits and use the Internet as transport.  As this 
happens, the corporate network does not even care that the service provider is 
using v6 transport to carry a tunnel.  V4 vs v6 becomes a non-issue over time 
and the pressure to change everything over to v6 goes away since the v4 space 
is not growing.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL

RE: 44/8

[Naslund, Steve]

In defense of John and ARIN, if you did not recognize that ARDC represented an 
authority for this resource, who would be?  The complaints would have been even 
more shrill if ARIN took it upon themselves to “represent” the amateur radio 
community and had denied the request or re-allocated the assignment.  IANA 
would have been just as out of line making decisions for the community.  In my 
opinion the community is at fault for not recognizing the value of their 
assigned resource and putting mechanisms in place for its management (or maybe 
just not understanding the power that the ARDC represented).  At the end of the 
day, someone has to represent an authority for an assignment and ARDC was as 
close as you could get.  About the closest other organization would have been 
someone like the ARRL but even then you have a US organization representing a 
worldwide loosely coupled community.  I suppose there is a UN basis for 
worldwide management but does anyone here think that any UN organization would 
be a trustworthy administrator.

I think the decision to sell off some of the block makes sense given the size 
and current usage.   After all, by definition amateur radio is about advancing 
the state of the art and experimenting, v6 allocations are not scarce at all.  
The problem here is that the amateur radio community does appear to think they 
were well represented by the ARDC which I would have to say is their fault.   
The original allocation was made a long time ago when there was so much space 
that it had no real value.  What everyone seems to be bent out of shape about 
is that there was a value to this block and someone got paid for it.  This does 
not seem to put the community in peril of running out of space.  How you share 
in the dividends of this sale is another unsolvable problem.  How do you 
allocate this dividend to a worldwide community with no centralized membership 
database?

The original assignment of this block seems to have been a couple of people 
with an idea that was forward looking.  The fact that the authority for 
something like that was somewhat murky is not at all surprising.  In general, a 
lot of older assignments become clouded and disputable through numerous 
acquisitions and changes in control especially at a time that those assignment 
were not seen as having real value.  ARIN is in a sticky position here no 
matter what call they make.  I don’t envy John’s job in the least ☺

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL

>Respectfully John, this wasn't a DBA or an individual figuring the org name 
>field on the old email template couldn't be blank. A class-A was >allocated to 
>a _purpose_. You've not only allowed but encouraged that valuable resource to 
>be reassigned to an organization, this ARDC, and then >treated the 
>organization as a proxy for the purpose. No one asked you to do that. Nothing 
>in the publicly vetted policies demanded that you attach >organizations to the 
>purpose-based allocations and certainly nothing demanded that you grant such 
>organizations identical control over the >resources as the control possessed 
>by folks who were the intended direct recipients of assignments.
>
>This is a rare day, indeed, but I find myself largely agreeing with Bill here.
>
>The only thing I dispute here is that I’m pretty sure that the principals of 
>ARDC did request ARIN to make ARDC the controlling organization of the 
>resource. >The question here is whether or not it was appropriate or correct 
>for ARIN to do so.
>
>IMHO, it was not. IMHO, ARIN should have recognized that this particular block 
>was issued for a purpose and not to an organization or individual. That 
>contacts >were volunteers from the community that agreed to take on a task. 
>Even if the block ended up contactless, it should not have been open to claim 
>and certainly not >to 8.3 or 8.4 partial transfer to another organization away 
>from that purpose.

Re: 240/4 (Re: 44/8)

[Ross Tajvar]

>  Editor's note: This draft has not been submitted to any formal
>  process.  It may change significantly if it is ever submitted.
>  You are reading it because we trust you and we value your
>  opinions.  *Please do not recirculate it.*  Please join us in
>  testing patches and equipment!

(emphasis mine)

Interesting choice to host it in a public Github repo, then...

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:17 PM Mikael Abrahamsson 
wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> >   2.  It was decided that the effort to modify each and every IP
> stack in order to facilitate use of this relatively small block (16 /8s
> being evaluated against a global
> >   run rate at the time of roughly 2.5 /8s per month, mostly
> to RIPE and APNIC) vs. putting that same effort into modifying each and
> every IP stack to support
> >   IPv6 was an equation of very small benefit for slightly
> smaller cost. (Less than 8 additional months of IPv4 free pool vs.
> hopefully making IPv6 deployable
> >   before IPv4 ran out).
>
> Well, people are working on making 240/4 usable in IP stacks:
>
>
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dtaht/unicast-extensions/master/rfcs/draft-gilmore-taht-v4uniext.txt
>
> There have been patches accepted into some BSDs and into Linux
> tools/kernel and other operating systems to make 240/4 configurable and
> working as unicast space.
>
> I don't expect it to show up in DFZ anytime soon, but some people have
> dilligently been working on removing any obstacles to using 240/4 in most
> common operating systems.
>
> For controlled environments, it's probably deployable today with some
> caveats. I think it'd be fine as a compliment to RFC1918 space for some
> internal networks.
>
> --
> Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
>

Re: 240/4 (Re: 44/8)

[George Herbert]

Most importantly, if you're running out of 1918 space is a totally
different problem than running out of global routable space.

If you patch common OSes for 240/4 usability but a significant fraction of
say unpatched OSes, IOT, consumer routers, old random net cruft necessary
for infrastructure aren't patched... it's not actually globally routable.
At some point you can write off the few stragglers but... really, get IPv6
everywhere.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:50 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:

>
>
> > On Jul 22, 2019, at 20:14 , Mikael Abrahamsson  wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> >>  2.  It was decided that the effort to modify each and every IP
> stack in order to facilitate use of this relatively small block (16 /8s
> being evaluated against a global
> >>  run rate at the time of roughly 2.5 /8s per month, mostly
> to RIPE and APNIC) vs. putting that same effort into modifying each and
> every IP stack to support
> >>  IPv6 was an equation of very small benefit for slightly
> smaller cost. (Less than 8 additional months of IPv4 free pool vs.
> hopefully making IPv6 deployable
> >>  before IPv4 ran out).
> >
> > Well, people are working on making 240/4 usable in IP stacks:
> >
> >
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dtaht/unicast-extensions/master/rfcs/draft-gilmore-taht-v4uniext.txt
> >
> > There have been patches accepted into some BSDs and into Linux
> tools/kernel and other operating systems to make 240/4 configurable and
> working as unicast space.
> >
> > I don't expect it to show up in DFZ anytime soon, but some people have
> dilligently been working on removing any obstacles to using 240/4 in most
> common operating systems.
> >
> > For controlled environments, it's probably deployable today with some
> caveats. I think it'd be fine as a compliment to RFC1918 space for some
> internal networks.
> >
> > --
> > Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
>
> I guess people can do whatever they want. I personally consider it to be a
> sad sad waste of time that could be better spent deploying IPv6 to more
> places.
>
> Owen
>
>

-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

Re: 240/4 (Re: 44/8)

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jul 22, 2019, at 20:14 , Mikael Abrahamsson  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
>>  2.  It was decided that the effort to modify each and every IP 
>> stack in order to facilitate use of this relatively small block (16 /8s 
>> being evaluated against a global
>>  run rate at the time of roughly 2.5 /8s per month, mostly to 
>> RIPE and APNIC) vs. putting that same effort into modifying each and every 
>> IP stack to support
>>  IPv6 was an equation of very small benefit for slightly smaller 
>> cost. (Less than 8 additional months of IPv4 free pool vs. hopefully making 
>> IPv6 deployable
>>  before IPv4 ran out).
> 
> Well, people are working on making 240/4 usable in IP stacks:
> 
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dtaht/unicast-extensions/master/rfcs/draft-gilmore-taht-v4uniext.txt
> 
> There have been patches accepted into some BSDs and into Linux tools/kernel 
> and other operating systems to make 240/4 configurable and working as unicast 
> space.
> 
> I don't expect it to show up in DFZ anytime soon, but some people have 
> dilligently been working on removing any obstacles to using 240/4 in most 
> common operating systems.
> 
> For controlled environments, it's probably deployable today with some 
> caveats. I think it'd be fine as a compliment to RFC1918 space for some 
> internal networks.
> 
> -- 
> Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

I guess people can do whatever they want. I personally consider it to be a sad 
sad waste of time that could be better spent deploying IPv6 to more places.

Owen

Re: 44/8

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jul 22, 2019, at 18:54 , John Curran  wrote:
> 
> On 22 Jul 2019, at 9:05 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>> ...
>> The only thing I dispute here is that I’m pretty sure that the principals of 
>> ARDC did request ARIN to make ARDC the controlling organization of the 
>> resource. The question here is whether or not it was appropriate or correct 
>> for ARIN to do so.
>> 
>> IMHO, it was not. IMHO, ARIN should have recognized that this particular 
>> block was issued for a purpose and not to an organization or individual.
> 
> Owen - 
> 
> All IP address blocks were issued for some purpose, and this includes quite a 
> variety of early networks that were issued for various research purposes.  
> There are also blocks that were issued (or made available via community 
> process) for special purposes; as noted, you can find that registry here - 
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-special-registry.xhtml

All address blocks were issued for some purpose, but most were issued TO 
individuals or organizations FOR that purpose.

In the case of 44.0.0.0/8, it was arguably issued TO the purpose as well as FOR 
the purpose and the “Reference” contact was just the person currently serving 
as POC for the address space, not an “owner” of the registration record.

> 
>> That contacts were volunteers from the community that agreed to take on a 
>> task. Even if the block ended up contactless, it should not have been open 
>> to claim and certainly not to 8.3 or 8.4 partial transfer to another 
>> organization away from that purpose.
>> 
>> Unfortunately, the incremental way in which this was done probably rendered 
>> ARIN staff into a situation similar to the proverbial (and apocryphal) frog 
>> in a pot of water.
> 
> Not at all. 

Oh? Do tell…

> 
>> At each step, it probably seemed on the edge, but still appropriate. This 
>> was, of course exacerbated by the fact that the community didn’t really 
>> notice anything amiss until this last step, because the individuals in 
>> question were, by and large, trusted members of the community that appeared 
>> to be continuing to act in the community’s interest.
> 
> Actually, the change in 2011 to ARDC was perfectly appropriate then, and 
> would be approved if received today – 

No doubt… 

>   AMPRnet was assigned for Amateur Packet Radio Experimentation (a /8 
> research assignment) with Hank Magnuski (or his designated successor) to 
> determine how that was to be accomplished.   It is presently registered to 
> ARDC, a public benefit not-for-profit whose purposes are “to support, 
> promote, and enhance digital communication and broader communication science 
> and technology, to promote Amateur Radio, scientific research, 
> experimentation, education, development, open access, and innovation in 
> information and communication technology”, and this change was made by a 
> designated successor (Brian Kantor.)  

I’m aware.

> You might not like ARDC’s administration due to their apparent lack of 
> engagement with the community, but it remains quite clear that any of the 
> contacts in the lineage of the block could have requested the same update.
> The change was compliant with the purpose of original issuance, and has been 
> allowed for other projects/activities which similarly formalized their 
> structure over time. 

I admit there’s a valid case for this particular change. This particular change 
is the cold water stage of the above analogy.

>> Honestly, I doubt most of the community was aware of (I certainly wasn’t) 
>> the incorporation of ARDC and the subsequent transfer of control of 
>> 44.0.0.0/8 to ARDC — The Enterprise vs. ARDC — The purpose. Had I been aware 
>> of that move at the time, I certainly would have scrutinized the governance 
>> process for ARDC and likely cried foul on that basis. That’s where I believe 
>> ARIN erred most grievously in this process and that’s where I believe these 
>> resources were hijacked to the detriment of the amateur radio community.
> 
> The resources were registered to a not-for-profit entity of similar purpose 
> per the direction of the authorized contact.  In addition to the current 
> contact, the organization’s board also contains those who were the authorized 
> contact for the number block in the past and have contributed heavily to the 
> amateur radio community.   If the same request to update the registration 
> were to arrive today, it would be approved, as to do otherwise would require 
> that ARIN unilaterally impose policy constraints on an address block that are 
> neither documented nor are the output of any community process for the 
> definition of a special assignment at the IETF. 
> 
> As for whether the recent transfer of a /10 portion was “to the detriment of 
> the amateur radio community”, that is likely a topic that the amateur radio 
> community should discuss with ARDC, and (as noted earlier) may not be 
> particularly relevant to this mailing 

Re: 44/8 RDNS is still broken!

[Bryan Fields]

On 7/22/19 10:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> That would be ARDC, not ADCR, but here’s the problem… As far as most of us
> are concerned, it was inappropriate for ARIN to hand them control of the
> block in the first place. We were fine with them doing the record keeping
> and providing POC services, but we never expected them to be so bold as to
> simply steal community resources to enrich an organization we never vetted,
> no matter how well intended.
Well here is the rub.  ARDC is not technically competent to manage the blocks
in the first place.  One can see how they bungled the RDNS for 44.0.0.0/9 and
44.128.0.0/10 after the sale causing a world wide 22+ hour outage.  Several
/16 allocations are still down, over 5 days later due to lame delegation.

> $ dig +trace -x 44.25.12.1
> ; <<>> DiG 9.8.3-P1 <<>> +trace -x 44.25.12.1
> ;; global options: +cmd
> . 360 IN  NS  J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> . 360 IN  NS  E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> . 360 IN  NS  G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> . 360 IN  NS  F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> . 360 IN  NS  A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> . 360 IN  NS  K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> . 360 IN  NS  B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> . 360 IN  NS  D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> . 360 IN  NS  M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> . 360 IN  NS  L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> . 360 IN  NS  C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> . 360 IN  NS  I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> . 360 IN  NS  H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> ;; Received 492 bytes from 192.168.8.200#53(192.168.8.200) in 1454 ms
> 
> in-addr.arpa. 172800  IN  NS  a.in-addr-servers.arpa.
> in-addr.arpa. 172800  IN  NS  b.in-addr-servers.arpa.
> in-addr.arpa. 172800  IN  NS  c.in-addr-servers.arpa.
> in-addr.arpa. 172800  IN  NS  d.in-addr-servers.arpa.
> in-addr.arpa. 172800  IN  NS  e.in-addr-servers.arpa.
> in-addr.arpa. 172800  IN  NS  f.in-addr-servers.arpa.
> ;; Received 417 bytes from 2001:7fd::1#53(2001:7fd::1) in 1837 ms
> 
> 44.in-addr.arpa.  86400   IN  NS  x.arin.net.
> 44.in-addr.arpa.  86400   IN  NS  z.arin.net.
> 44.in-addr.arpa.  86400   IN  NS  r.arin.net.
> ;; Received 112 bytes from 2001:dd8:6::101#53(2001:dd8:6::101) in 839 ms
> 
> 25.44.in-addr.arpa.   86400   IN  NS  ampr.org.
> 25.44.in-addr.arpa.   86400   IN  NS  a.coreservers.uk.
> 25.44.in-addr.arpa.   86400   IN  NS  munnari.oz.au.
> 25.44.in-addr.arpa.   86400   IN  NS  ampr-dns.in-berlin.de.
> 25.44.in-addr.arpa.   86400   IN  NS  ns2.threshinc.com.
> ;; Received 186 bytes from 2001:500:13::63#53(2001:500:13::63) in 5508 ms
> 
> 25.44.in-addr.arpa.   3600IN  NS  c.ns.hamwan.net.
> 25.44.in-addr.arpa.   3600IN  NS  b.ns.hamwan.net.
> 25.44.in-addr.arpa.   3600IN  NS  a.ns.hamwan.net.
> ;; BAD (HORIZONTAL) REFERRAL
> ;; Received 102 bytes from 2a00:ed40:4001:1::10#53(2a00:ed40:4001:1::10) in 
> 579 ms
> 
> 1.12.25.44.in-addr.arpa. 3600 IN  PTR 
> loopback0.r1.triangle.hamwan.net.
> ;; Received 87 bytes from 44.24.245.2#53(44.24.245.2) in 99 ms

Someone, anyone, want to get this fixed?

The road to hell is paved in good intentions.
Hey mama, look at me, I'm on my way to the promised land, whoo!
-- 
Bryan Fields

727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net

240/4 (Re: 44/8)

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Owen DeLong wrote:


2.  It was decided that the effort to modify each and every IP 
stack in order to facilitate use of this relatively small block (16 /8s being 
evaluated against a global
run rate at the time of roughly 2.5 /8s per month, mostly to 
RIPE and APNIC) vs. putting that same effort into modifying each and every IP 
stack to support
IPv6 was an equation of very small benefit for slightly smaller 
cost. (Less than 8 additional months of IPv4 free pool vs. hopefully making 
IPv6 deployable
before IPv4 ran out).


Well, people are working on making 240/4 usable in IP stacks:

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dtaht/unicast-extensions/master/rfcs/draft-gilmore-taht-v4uniext.txt

There have been patches accepted into some BSDs and into Linux 
tools/kernel and other operating systems to make 240/4 configurable and 
working as unicast space.


I don't expect it to show up in DFZ anytime soon, but some people have 
dilligently been working on removing any obstacles to using 240/4 in most 
common operating systems.


For controlled environments, it's probably deployable today with some 
caveats. I think it'd be fine as a compliment to RFC1918 space for some 
internal networks.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: 44/8

[Matt Hoppes]

So the elephant in the room: now that Precedent has been set - how do I 
purchase some of the 44 block? :)

Re: 44/8

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jul 22, 2019, at 15:33 , Michel Py  wrote:
> 
>>> William Herrin wrote :
>>> The IPv6 loonies killed all IETF proposals to convert it to unicast space. 
>>> It remains reserved/unusable.
> 
> +1
> 
>> Fred Baker wrote :
>> Speaking for myself, I don't see the point. It doesn't solve anything,
> 
> As an extension of RFC1918, it would have solved the questionable and 
> nevertheless widespread squatting of 30/8 and other un-announced DoD blocks 
> because 10/8 is not big enough for some folks.

s/would/might/
s/questionable/objectionable to some/

> TSI Disclaimer:  This message and any files or text attached to it are 
> intended only for the recipients named above and contain information that may 
> be confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you 
> must not forward, copy, use or otherwise disclose this communication or the 
> information contained herein. In the event you have received this message in 
> error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, and 
> then delete all copies of it from your system. Thank you!...

Oh, please… You posted it to a public mailing list. TSI’s lawyers need a 
reality check.

Owen

Re: 44/8

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jul 22, 2019, at 14:03 , John Curran  wrote:
> 
> On 22 Jul 2019, at 4:44 PM, Matthew Kaufman  wrote:
>> ...
>> There's a bit of magic. If ARIN's board of directors decided to up and start 
>> taking people's existing IPv4 allocations and selling them to Amazon to beef 
>> up the ARIN scholarship fund, the recourse would include going to IANA and 
>> noting that ARIN was no longer behaving as a responsible registrar for the 
>> global community it serves.
> 
> Hmm – a rather interesting thought exercise.   Rather than belabor the point, 
> I shall simply suggest that in such circumstances you might find yourself far 
> better making use of mechanisms available both in the ARIN bylaws (and under 
> Virginia state law for a non-stock membership organization) to address such a 
> matter, but that’s based on my perhaps imperfect knowledge of the 
> situation... 
> 
>> Here the amateur radio community has noted that ARDC's board of directors 
>> has decided to up and start taking people's existing IPv4 allocations 
>> (including a /15 in use by the German amateur radio community) and selling 
>> them to Amazon to beef up the ARDC grant fund (without engaging with the 
>> global community of radio amateurs who thought that net 44 was being held in 
>> trust for them, or engaging with even those entities/individuals who'd 
>> already been allocated address space in the block). But because ARDC isn't 
>> actually an IP address registrar of global IP space for its community as 
>> delegated by IANA, we're left with grasping at ARIN for some accountability 
>> here.
> 
> 
> It is both touching (and somewhat disquieting) that you view the RIR system 
> being the only available source of community accountability, but it is not 
> correct – ARDC has significant obligations as non-profit public benefit 
> corporation in order to remain a valid legal entity.   I imagine that there 
> is now significantly more engagement between the amateur radio community and 
> that organization, and one hopes it can be positively directed to further 
> digital communication by the amateur radio community. 

Perhaps, but as I understand it:

1.  ARDC cannot undo the transaction.
2.  Even if ARDC is forced into non-existence, that does not 
restore the resources to the Amateur Radio Community.
3.  Eliminating ARDC at this point only makes the future of those 
funds even less likely to serve any valid Amateur Radio Purpose.

Thus, ARIN, which runs the registry and does have the ability to invalidate the 
transaction for fraud upon realizing that ARDC really didn’t have the backing 
of the community in it’s claim of ownership of the block and the coincidence of 
the contacts deciding to turn this into a structure they could enrich (and 
possibly draw a salary from, though I do not know if that is anyone’s intent), 
and knowing just how to move it through the ARIN process through a rather long 
game still constitutes a fraudulent misappropriation of the resources in 
question vs. the community interest in said resources.

Owen

Re: 44/8

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jul 22, 2019, at 12:24 , John Curran  wrote:
> 
> On 22 Jul 2019, at 1:16 PM, William Herrin  wrote:
>> 
>> Respectfully John, this wasn't a DBA or an individual figuring the org name 
>> field on the old email template couldn't be blank. A class-A was allocated 
>> to a _purpose_.
> 
> Bill - 
> 
> The block in question is a /8 research assignment made with a particular 
> network name and a particular responsible technical contact, just as so many 
> other research networks during that period; indeed, if that is what you meant 
> by “purpose”, then you are correct.   Like so many of those early research 
> networks, the evolution of the block over time was under control of the 
> contact listed in the registry, and resulted in some being returned, some 
> ending up with commercial firms, some with not-for-profit entities, etc.   
> 
> In the case of AMRPNET, in 2011 ARIN did approve update of the registration 
> to a public benefit not-for-profit at the request of the registered contact.  
>  
> 
>> You've not only allowed but encouraged that valuable resource to be 
>> reassigned to an organization, this ARDC, and then treated the organization 
>> as a proxy for the purpose. No one asked you to do that.
> 
> Again, ARIN was specifically requested to do exactly that by the 
> authoritative contact, and it was correct to proceed given that the IP block 
> was a general purpose IP address block absent any other policy guidance. 
> 
>> Nothing in the publicly vetted policies demanded that you attach 
>> organizations to the purpose-based allocations
> 
> You’ve suggested that this network was some special “purpose-based” 
> allocation, but failed to point to any actual policy guidance that 
> distinguishes it in that manner.Note that we do have many such documents 
> that identify a variety of purpose-based allocations – for example, RFC 5737 
> ("IPv4 Address Blocks Reserved for Documentation”),  RFC 6598 for 'Shared 
> Address Space' for CGN, etc.  If you do have a IETF or IANA policy document 
> applicable to AMPRNET that somehow has been overlooked, please provide it to 
> ARIN as part of an Internet number resource fraud report, and we will 
> promptly review and investigate. 

John,

Here’s a decent history of it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMPRNet

Note that Hank obtained the allocation from Jon in the 1970s and Jon apparently 
officially recorded it in September 1981, very early in the days of the IANA. 
This is one of the oldest IP address allocations.

The page has already been updated by someone to reflect the transfer in 
question. I’ve been advised that the part about CAIDA network telescope is 
somewhat in error.

It’s true that CAIDA receives the background traffic that doesn’t have more 
specifics, but that this is done as part of advertising the full block for 
purposes of AMPRNET tunnels to those who have legitimate allocations and don’t 
have their own BGP arrangements for advertising their blocks.

Here is a discussion by amateurs of failures in the ability to properly use 
this block for its intended purpose dating back to 2012:
https://www.reddit.com/r/amateurradio/comments/ohi7j/did_you_know_that_there_is_a_classa_16777216/

An early RFC (820) shows it as Amateur Radio Experiment Network and shows HM 
(Hank Magnuski, KA6M) under the column Reference.
(not Administrative or Technical contact, but “Reference”). In the 
people section, Hank is the only one who doesn’t have an
organization code between his name and email, showing only “---“ 
instead.

This is mirrored in RFC900. Also in RFC1020, RFC1062, RFC1117, RFC1166, except 
that HM has been replaced by PK28 (Phil Karn, KA9Q) in the
“Reference” column.

Another very good history is here:
http://www.jdunman.com/ww/AmateurRadio/Networking/amprnet.htm

There is a difference between designation for a purpose and “special use”. 
You’ll note that each of the “special use” address ranges is for some 
particular use that is special to the internet, not for some particular 
research, educational, or other purpose outside of IANA.

Nonetheless, the fact remains that from the perspective of amateur radio 
operators, 44.0.0.0/8 belongs to Amateur Radio in general and Hank and his 
successors are/were merely stewards without the authority to act outside of the 
maintenance of the registration in good standing with the IANA or its successor 
(ARIN in this case).

Unfortunately, while I have met Phil (who is complicit in this process), I do 
not know Hank and am probably unknown to him. I have no idea how to reach him 
in order to try and get a statement of his intent in obtaining the block and/or 
his feelings about this transaction. Of course, it would be even harder to get 
additional information from Jon at this time for obvious reasons.

Owen

Re: 44/8

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jul 22, 2019, at 13:36 , John Curran  wrote:
> 
> On 22 Jul 2019, at 4:17 PM, Matthew Kaufman  > wrote:
>> 
>> The change in character/purpose of the network has operational impacts to 
>> me, and as such should have been done as an IANA action (as the original 
>> purpose was arguably also set by IANA action, when IANA was Jon Postel, and 
>> simply not documented very well):
>> 
>> I am the network administrator for a 501(c)(3) amateur radio club that 
>> operates a digital microwave network licensed via FCC Part 101 (commercial 
>> microwave), FCC Part 15 ("unlicensed" ISM) and FCC Part 97 (amateur radio). 
>> The Part 97 links are, by law, restricted to amateur radio uses. One way to 
>> ensure this is to filter based on the fact that 44.0.0.0/8 
>>  is for international amateur radio use only. That has 
>> changed as a result of ARIN's consent to a "transfer" to an entity that will 
>> not be using these for the originally stated purpose. We have a /23 
>> allocated within 44.0.0.0/8  and it is likely that as we 
>> expand we will need additional address space, so the transfer of some of the 
>> unallocated space is of concern for that reason as well.
>> 
>> What *should* have happened at the time of the formation of ARIN and the 
>> other regional registries is that either 1) the 44.0.0.0/8 
>>  block have been delegated to a special-purpose RIR 
>> incorporated to manage the amateur radio allocations within this block 
>> (which is what ampr.org  has been doing, but not as an 
>> IANA-recognized community-managed RIR); or 2) the 44.0.0.0/8 
>>  block have been delegated to another RIR (e.g., ARIN) 
>> that could have special policies applicable only to that block and managed 
>> by the community. 
> 
> There is no such creature as a “special purpose” RIR; Regional Internet 
> Registries serve the general community in a particular geographic regions as 
> described by ICANN ICP-2. 
> 
> I would note that ARIN’s original “region” was actually fairly broad 
> (everything not in the RIPE or APNIC regions, just as InterNIC had served), 
> and this included numerous “unusual" allocations to various international 
> projects such as research stations, global airline networks, consortia, and 
> other purposes both of formal legal structure and otherwise.  In all cases, 
> the entities successfully administer subassignments based on their own unique 
> policies; it is not necessary for the IANA or an RIR to be involved in such 
> special purpose networks, so long as there is a party appropriately 
> administering the sub assignments for the network on behalf of the particular 
> community. 

The key word here is “appropriately”.

Until a few days ago, (and the reason the prior actions went largely 
unchallenged/unnoticed), ARDC (the organization, not the purpose) had not yet 
acted inappropriately in their administration of the sub assignments for the 
network on behalf of the community.

A few days ago, with ARIN complicit in the process, they took an inappropriate 
action not related to administering the sub assignments (or sub allocations in 
some cases) on behalf of the community and, instead, disposed of a significant 
fraction of the resources to enrich one particular organization without 
significant any vetting of the community in terms of their fitness for that 
purpose or the community’s willingness to part with said address space.

>> I would guess that in either case, the odds that the community would have 
>> decided to peel off 1/4 of the space and sell it to a commercial entity 
>> would have been low, and that the odds that IANA would have agreed to go 
>> along with such a thing at least as low.
>> 
>> Instead we're here, because ARIN treated "Amateur Radio Digital 
>> Communications" not as a purpose (that happened to not be documented well 
>> via RFC or other process) but as an organization name that anyone could 
>> adopt, given sufficient documentation. Despite the fact that the block was 
>> already being used in a way that you'd expect an RIR to be behaving, not the 
>> way the organization has behaved.
> 
> Matthew - It is completely incorrect that all it took was "an organization 
> name that anyone could adopt, given sufficient documentation” –≈ the 
> organization name is not sufficient; you need to have the authorized contact 
> for IP address block make such a request – as administration of the block was 
> entrusted to the contact, and the party requesting needs to be the original 
> registrant or their designated successor in a clear chain of authority.   

Yes… It took the conspiracy of those entrusted with the responsible POC status 
on the block changing the name of the block to match their newly formed 
organization in order to carry this out. Likely from their perspective it was 
an effort to clean up the relationship between the AMPRNET and 

Re: 44/8

[John Curran]

On 22 Jul 2019, at 9:05 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
> ...
> The only thing I dispute here is that I’m pretty sure that the principals of 
> ARDC did request ARIN to make ARDC the controlling organization of the 
> resource. The question here is whether or not it was appropriate or correct 
> for ARIN to do so.
> 
> IMHO, it was not. IMHO, ARIN should have recognized that this particular 
> block was issued for a purpose and not to an organization or individual.

Owen - 

All IP address blocks were issued for some purpose, and this includes quite a 
variety of early networks that were issued for various research purposes.  
There are also blocks that were issued (or made available via community 
process) for special purposes; as noted, you can find that registry here - 
https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-special-registry.xhtml
 
> That contacts were volunteers from the community that agreed to take on a 
> task. Even if the block ended up contactless, it should not have been open to 
> claim and certainly not to 8.3 or 8.4 partial transfer to another 
> organization away from that purpose.
> 
> Unfortunately, the incremental way in which this was done probably rendered 
> ARIN staff into a situation similar to the proverbial (and apocryphal) frog 
> in a pot of water.

Not at all. 

> At each step, it probably seemed on the edge, but still appropriate. This 
> was, of course exacerbated by the fact that the community didn’t really 
> notice anything amiss until this last step, because the individuals in 
> question were, by and large, trusted members of the community that appeared 
> to be continuing to act in the community’s interest.

Actually, the change in 2011 to ARDC was perfectly appropriate then, and would 
be approved if received today – 

AMPRnet was assigned for Amateur Packet Radio Experimentation (a /8 
research assignment) with Hank Magnuski (or his designated successor) to 
determine how that was to be accomplished.   It is presently registered to 
ARDC, a public benefit not-for-profit whose purposes are “to support, promote, 
and enhance digital communication and broader communication science and 
technology, to promote Amateur Radio, scientific research, experimentation, 
education, development, open access, and innovation in information and 
communication technology”, and this change was made by a designated successor 
(Brian Kantor.)  

You might not like ARDC’s administration due to their apparent lack of 
engagement with the community, but it remains quite clear that any of the 
contacts in the lineage of the block could have requested the same update.
The change was compliant with the purpose of original issuance, and has been 
allowed for other projects/activities which similarly formalized their 
structure over time. 

> Honestly, I doubt most of the community was aware of (I certainly wasn’t) the 
> incorporation of ARDC and the subsequent transfer of control of 44.0.0.0/8 to 
> ARDC — The Enterprise vs. ARDC — The purpose. Had I been aware of that move 
> at the time, I certainly would have scrutinized the governance process for 
> ARDC and likely cried foul on that basis. That’s where I believe ARIN erred 
> most grievously in this process and that’s where I believe these resources 
> were hijacked to the detriment of the amateur radio community.

The resources were registered to a not-for-profit entity of similar purpose per 
the direction of the authorized contact.  In addition to the current contact, 
the organization’s board also contains those who were the authorized contact 
for the number block in the past and have contributed heavily to the amateur 
radio community.   If the same request to update the registration were to 
arrive today, it would be approved, as to do otherwise would require that ARIN 
unilaterally impose policy constraints on an address block that are neither 
documented nor are the output of any community process for the definition of a 
special assignment at the IETF. 

As for whether the recent transfer of a /10 portion was “to the detriment of 
the amateur radio community”, that is likely a topic that the amateur radio 
community should discuss with ARDC, and (as noted earlier) may not be 
particularly relevant to this mailing list or its subscribers. 

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

Re: 44/8

[Sabri Berisha]

- On Jul 22, 2019, at 5:54 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:

Hi Owen,

>> On Jul 21, 2019, at 12:28 , Sabri Berisha  wrote:

>> Only when it becomes cheaper to go IPv6 than to use legacy V4 will V6 be 
>> adopted
>> by large corporations. Well, the ones that are governed by beancounters 
>> instead
>> of engineers. And by that time, I'll be charging $500/hr to assist $CORP with
>> their IPv6 migration plans.
> 
> I can guarantee you that Akamai is very much run by beancounters in addition 
> to
> engineers. I have first hand experience with that.
> 
> I can also assure you that it’s quite unlikely that any of Comcast, Netflix,
> Facebook, Google, AT, T-Mobile, or Verizon just to name a few of the biggest
> are managed without due consideration of input from the bean counters. (I’d 
> bet
> at each of those companies, the day that engineer beats beancounter in a
> disagreement is rare, indeed).

Sure! Facebook and Google were (are, I can only presume) still dominated by 
engineers, not beancounters.

The other companies you mentioned have little choice; they are consumer ISPs 
and 
are faced with a simple truth: IPv6 or a line-item for "IPv4 purchase" on the 
budget.

> The problem with the approach you are taking to IPv6 cost-benefit analysis is
> that your claim of no ROI doesn’t actually hold true.

It does, it just depends on the organization.

And don't get me wrong, you're preaching to the choir here. I am very much in 
favor 
of deploying v6. I just have had and still have a hard time getting the 
resources to 
do so. As long as the vast majority eyeballs have IPv4, whether via NAT or 
native, 
non-subscriber platforms will be able to function. deploying IPv6 is seen as 
one of 
the "cool" projects, not a "business critical" one.

Facebook and Google were founded at a time where IPv6 was hot and on engineers' 
radar. 
Their networks were built from scratch with IPv6 and scalability in mind, and 
beancounters don't rule those orgs.

Here is how I imagine things go at Comcast etc:
Comcast Engineer: we need IPv6, will cost $bagsofmoney.
Comcast Beancounter: impossible. What's the justification?
Comcast Engineer: we will run out of IPv4 and will be unable to add 
subscribers, and 
thus grow, and thus increase our marketshare.
Comcast Beancounter: approved.

Here is how things go in my experience:
Content Engineer: we need IPv6, will cost $bagsofmoney.
Content Beancounter: impossible. What's the justification?
Content Engineer: well, sometime in the future someone will deprecate IPv4 and 
all 
eyeballs will only have IPv6.
Content Beancounter: when is that going to happen?
Content Engineer: I don't know, for now they're using dual stack and all kinds 
of 
translation mechanisms.
Content Beancounter: come back when it becomes a necessity instead of a luxury.

I had that conversation in multiple organizations. According to Google, 
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, even today among the 
eyeballs the 
adoption rate is a poor 30%. And that graph is not looking like a hockey stick 
either.
It's still very much a chicken and egg problem, in a lot of networks.

Unless we come up with a real hard deadline (like we had with y2k), there will 
always 
be organizations that won't make the investment. It's either that or wait for a 
natural 
tech-refresh, like we've been doing for the last 20 years.

Sad, but so far this has been my experience. And again, I wish that things were 
different.
Let's pick 6/6/2026 as IPv4 shutdown day.

Thanks,

Sabri
JNCIE #261

Re: 44/8

[John Curran]

On 22 Jul 2019, at 8:47 PM, Valdis Klētnieks  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 20:36:40 -, John Curran said:
> 
>> There is no such creature as a “special purpose” RIR; Regional Internet
>> Registries serve the general community in a particular geographic regions as
>> described by ICANN ICP-2.
> 
> OK, I'll bite then.  Which RIR allocates address space to trans-national 
> interests
> such as the UN or NATO? Given that Matthew Kaufman states a /15 out of 44/8
> was allocated to a German organization, it certainly sounds like we're well 
> into
> transnational territory here.

Valdis -

International organizations today get IP address blocks generally from 
the RIR which serves their headquarters location.

Prior to ARIN’s inception, international organizations who obtained 
address blocks often obtained them from the InterNIC (which handled IP address 
issuance for all parties not in the RIPE or APNIC regions.)

ARIN continued to serve these early registrations upon its formation, 
and most of those registrations were moved to the appropriate RIR in 2002 as 
part of the "ERX - Early Registration Transfer Project” 


Hope this helps clarify things somewhat - thanks for asking!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: 44/8

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jul 22, 2019, at 12:15 , Naslund, Steve  wrote:
> 
> I think the Class E block has been covered before.  There were two reasons to 
> not re-allocate it.
>  
> 1.  A lot of existing code base does not know how to handle those 
> addresses and may refuse to route them or will otherwise mishandle them.
> 2.  It was decided that squeezing every bit of space out of the v4 
> allocations only served to delay the desired v6 deployment.


Close, but there is a subtle error…

2.  It was decided that the effort to modify each and every IP 
stack in order to facilitate use of this relatively small block (16 /8s being 
evaluated against a global
run rate at the time of roughly 2.5 /8s per month, mostly to 
RIPE and APNIC) vs. putting that same effort into modifying each and every IP 
stack to support
IPv6 was an equation of very small benefit for slightly smaller 
cost. (Less than 8 additional months of IPv4 free pool vs. hopefully making 
IPv6 deployable
before IPv4 ran out).

Owen

>  
> This is my recollection and might be flawed.
>  
> Steven Naslund
> Chicago IL
>  
> >Whatever happened to the entire class E block? I know it's reserved for 
> >future use, but sounds like that future is now given that we've exhausted 
> >all existing >allocations.

Re: 44/8

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jul 22, 2019, at 10:16 , William Herrin  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 6:02 AM John Curran  > wrote:
> > On 21 Jul 2019, at 7:32 AM, William Herrin  > > wrote:
> > > Having read their explanation, I think the folks involved had good 
> > > reasons and the best intentions but this stinks like fraud to me. Worse,
> > > it looks like ARIN was complicit in the fraud -- encouraging and then 
> > > supporting the folks involved as they established a fiefdom of their own
> > >rather than integrating with the organizations that existed.
> >
> > As you are aware, there are individuals and businesses who operate as
> >a “Doing Business As/DBA" or on behalf on an unincorporated organization
> >at the time of issuance; it is a more common occurrence than one might 
> >imagine,
> >and we have to deal with the early registrations appropriately based on the
> >particular circumstance.   ARIN promptly put processes in place so that such
> >registrations, having been made on behalf of a particular purpose or 
> >organization,
> >do not get misappropriated to become rights solely of the point of contact 
> >held for
> >personal gain – indeed, there are cases where organizations are created with
> >similar names for the purposes of hijacking number resources, but such cases
> >don’t generally involve principles who were involved in the administration 
> >of the
> >resources since issuance nor do they involve formalization of the registrant 
> >into
> >a public benefit not-for-profit organization.
> 
> Respectfully John, this wasn't a DBA or an individual figuring the org name 
> field on the old email template couldn't be blank. A class-A was allocated to 
> a _purpose_. You've not only allowed but encouraged that valuable resource to 
> be reassigned to an organization, this ARDC, and then treated the 
> organization as a proxy for the purpose. No one asked you to do that. Nothing 
> in the publicly vetted policies demanded that you attach organizations to the 
> purpose-based allocations and certainly nothing demanded that you grant such 
> organizations identical control over the resources as the control possessed 
> by folks who were the intended direct recipients of assignments.

This is a rare day, indeed, but I find myself largely agreeing with Bill here.

The only thing I dispute here is that I’m pretty sure that the principals of 
ARDC did request ARIN to make ARDC the controlling organization of the 
resource. The question here is whether or not it was appropriate or correct for 
ARIN to do so.

IMHO, it was not. IMHO, ARIN should have recognized that this particular block 
was issued for a purpose and not to an organization or individual. That 
contacts were volunteers from the community that agreed to take on a task. Even 
if the block ended up contactless, it should not have been open to claim and 
certainly not to 8.3 or 8.4 partial transfer to another organization away from 
that purpose.

Unfortunately, the incremental way in which this was done probably rendered 
ARIN staff into a situation similar to the proverbial (and apocryphal) frog in 
a pot of water. At each step, it probably seemed on the edge, but still 
appropriate. This was, of course exacerbated by the fact that the community 
didn’t really notice anything amiss until this last step, because the 
individuals in question were, by and large, trusted members of the community 
that appeared to be continuing to act in the community’s interest.

Honestly, I doubt most of the community was aware of (I certainly wasn’t) the 
incorporation of ARDC and the subsequent transfer of control of 44.0.0.0/8 to 
ARDC — The Enterprise vs. ARDC — The purpose. Had I been aware of that move at 
the time, I certainly would have scrutinized the governance process for ARDC 
and likely cried foul on that basis. That’s where I believe ARIN erred most 
grievously in this process and that’s where I believe these resources were 
hijacked to the detriment of the amateur radio community.

I have no doubt that the board of ARDC (most of whom i consider friends) 
believed they were doing the right thing at each and every step. Unfortunately, 
they fell victim to an insidious form of scope creep and lost track of the fact 
that this allocation was for a purpose and not for an organization, no matter 
how well intentioned said organization may be. These addresses should be 
considered non-transferrable and the transfer should be reversed.

Owen

Re: 44/8

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jul 21, 2019, at 12:28 , Sabri Berisha  wrote:
> 
> - On Jul 21, 2019, at 4:48 AM, nanog nanog@nanog.org wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> All of this puts more pressure on the access networks to keep IPv4 running 
>> and
>> inflates the price of the remaining IPv4 addresses.
> 
> Exactly. Which means that the problem will solve itself.
> 
> Why is it taking so long to get IPv6 adopted? I'll tell you why: because the 
> cost does not outweigh the benefits at this time. To /you/ they may, but to 
> the average corporate bean counter they don't. Money and resources spent on 
> an IPv6 study and migration project today, will not provide an ROI tomorrow. 
> They will /maybe/ provide a modest ROI in a few years from now, if any. So 
> why would an SVP of Platform Engineering spend his budget on IPv6? 
> 
> Only when it becomes cheaper to go IPv6 than to use legacy V4 will V6 be 
> adopted by large corporations. Well, the ones that are governed by 
> beancounters instead of engineers. And by that time, I'll be charging $500/hr 
> to assist $CORP with their IPv6 migration plans.

I can guarantee you that Akamai is very much run by beancounters in addition to 
engineers. I have first hand experience with that.

I can also assure you that it’s quite unlikely that any of Comcast, Netflix, 
Facebook, Google, AT, T-Mobile, or Verizon just to name a few of the biggest 
are managed without due consideration of input from the bean counters. (I’d bet 
at each of those companies, the day that engineer beats beancounter in a 
disagreement is rare, indeed).

Each and every one of those large companies has deployed IPv6. Some to a 
greater extent than others. Facebook and T-Mo stand out as the prime examples, 
having gone all-IPv6 in as much of their network as practicable today.

The problem with the approach you are taking to IPv6 cost-benefit analysis is 
that your claim of no ROI doesn’t actually hold true.

The cost savings from a full-on deployment of IPv6 and moving to IPv4 as a 
service at the edge can be significant. They are hard to capture without very 
good cost accounting and the problem really tends to be that engineers are 
lousy cost-accountants and good cost accountants have a hard time understanding 
what IPv6 brings to the table.

It’s also true that some fraction (though now diminishing) of the ROI from a v6 
deployment cannot be realized until some other parties also deploy IPv6, but 
there’s good news on that front, too… More and more of those parties are 
realizing the need to deploy IPv6.

Owen

Re: 44/8

[Valdis Klētnieks]

On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 20:36:40 -, John Curran said:

> There is no such creature as a “special purpose” RIR; Regional Internet
> Registries serve the general community in a particular geographic regions as
> described by ICANN ICP-2.

OK, I'll bite then.  Which RIR allocates address space to trans-national 
interests
such as the UN or NATO? Given that Matthew Kaufman states a /15 out of 44/8
was allocated to a German organization, it certainly sounds like we're well into
transnational territory here.


pgpeG1K9uw9Td.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: 44/8

[Scott Weeks]

> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:02 PM Jerry Cloe  wrote:
>
> > There's already widespread use (abuse ?) of DOD /8's.
> > T-Mobile commonly assigns 26/8 space (and others) to
> > customers and nat's it.


> --- cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Ca By 
>
> My understanding is that is not currently commonly the
> case
> https://www.worldipv6launch.org/apps/ipv6week/measurement/images/graphs/T-MobileUSA.png
> ---


On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:31 PM Scott Weeks  wrote:
> Did they renumber (IPv4) out of that space?  Or are 
> they just not continuing to expand into it?


--- cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Ca By 

They stopped using ipv4 assigned for handsets for most 
cases with 464xlat

--


Ah, OK.  I didn't realize they were just using it for handsets.  I
thought the address space was used elsewhere.  When orgs do this the
ugliness of squatting sticks to the org seemingly forever like stink 
on sh!+

scott

Re: 44/8

[Ca By]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:31 PM Scott Weeks  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:02 PM Jerry Cloe  wrote:
>
> > There's already widespread use (abuse ?) of DOD /8's.
> > T-Mobile commonly assigns 26/8 space (and others) to
> > customers and nat's it.
>
>
> --- cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Ca By 
>
> My understanding is that is not currently commonly the
> case
>
>
> https://www.worldipv6launch.org/apps/ipv6week/measurement/images/graphs/T-MobileUSA.png
> ---
>
>
> Did they renumber (IPv4) out of that space?  Or are they
> just not continuing to expand into it?
>
> scott


They stopped using ipv4 assigned for handsets for most cases with 464xlat

https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/deploy360/2014/case-study-t-mobile-us-goes-ipv6-only-using-464xlat/


BT did similar

https://www.ipv6.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Nick-Heatley_BT_EE_Update_UKv6Council_201801207.pdf

And Telstra

https://blog.apnic.net/2017/01/13/telstras-five-year-mobile-ipv6-plan-becomes-reality/

And SK

https://blog.apnic.net/2019/06/03/ipv6-deployment-and-challenges-at-sk-telecom/


And Rogers, Telus, and others





>
>

RE: 44/8

[Michel Py]

>> Michel Py wrote :
>> As an extension of RFC1918, it would have solved the questionable and 
>> nevertheless widespread squatting of 30/8 and other un-announced DoD blocks 
>> because 10/8 is not big enough for some folks.

> Jerry Cloe wrote :
> There's already widespread use (abuse ?) of DOD /8's. T-Mobile commonly 
> assigns 26/8 space (and others) to customers and nat's it.

They are not the only ones; would probably be faster to count who does not 
squat than who does. Which makes my point : if we had done it 15 years ago and 
allocated 240/4 as private unicast, these 268 million addresses would have been 
enough for most to avoid squatting DoD.
This is the last attempt that I remember : 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-02

Not problem, because IPv6 is going to be deployed in the next two years, right 
? that's what I have been hearing for 20 years now.

Michel

TSI Disclaimer:  This message and any files or text attached to it are intended 
only for the recipients named above and contain information that may be 
confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not 
forward, copy, use or otherwise disclose this communication or the information 
contained herein. In the event you have received this message in error, please 
notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, and then delete all 
copies of it from your system. Thank you!...

Re: 44/8

[Brandon Butterworth]

On Mon Jul 22, 2019 at 06:33:17PM -0400, Paul Timmins wrote:
> And after 75 messages, nobody has asked the obvious question. When is 
> ARDC going to acquire IPv6 resources on our behalf? Instead being all 
> worried about legacy resources we're highly underutilizing.

I didn't want to spoil a good history dig but did think why not
sell the lot. With over 4x as much money it should be able to
pay to replace all the legacy kit/software using 44 with stuff
doing v6. When the regulator takes spectrum away for others
often the others pay the cost of clearing incumbents off.

However I've become a v6 idiot as I'd rather we stop dragging
this out and get everyone on v6 sooner. Recycling v4 is
just time wasting for the convenience of a few rich people
and transferring operational problem of scarce v4 onto the
less well funded.

brandon
(G1OZZ and provider of uk 44 gateway through GB7BBC and friends from
1995 to 2006)

Re: 44/8

[Scott Weeks]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:02 PM Jerry Cloe  wrote:

> There's already widespread use (abuse ?) of DOD /8's. 
> T-Mobile commonly assigns 26/8 space (and others) to 
> customers and nat's it.


--- cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Ca By 

My understanding is that is not currently commonly the 
case

https://www.worldipv6launch.org/apps/ipv6week/measurement/images/graphs/T-MobileUSA.png
---


Did they renumber (IPv4) out of that space?  Or are they 
just not continuing to expand into it?

scott

RE: 44/8

[Scott Weeks]

From:Michel Py 

As an extension of RFC1918, it would have solved the questionable 
and nevertheless widespread squatting of 30/8 and other un-announced
DoD blocks because 10/8 is not big enough for some folks.


--- je...@jtcloe.net wrote:
From: Jerry Cloe 

There's already widespread use (abuse ?) of DOD /8's. T-Mobile 
commonly assigns 26/8 space (and others) to customers and nat's it.
--



I participated in cutting Verizon Hawaii's assets into a standalone
network for Hawaiian Telcom in 2005.  They used 113/8 all over the 
place.  I worked at HT for 5 years after that, left for nine years 
and am now back and I am STILL dealing with that crap!

scott

Re: 44/8

[Ca By]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:02 PM Jerry Cloe  wrote:

> There's already widespread use (abuse ?) of DOD /8's. T-Mobile commonly
> assigns 26/8 space (and others) to customers and nat's it.
>
>
My understanding is that is not currently commonly the case

https://www.worldipv6launch.org/apps/ipv6week/measurement/images/graphs/T-MobileUSA.png


>
>
> -Original message-
> *From:* Michel Py 
> *Sent:* Mon 07-22-2019 05:36 pm
> *Subject:* RE: 44/8
> *To:* William Herrin ;
> *CC:* North American Network Operators‘ Group ;
>
> As an extension of RFC1918, it would have solved the questionable and
> nevertheless widespread squatting of 30/8 and other un-announced DoD blocks
> because 10/8 is not big enough for some folks.
>
> Michel
>
>

RE: 44/8

[Jerry Cloe]

There's already widespread use (abuse ?) of DOD /8's. T-Mobile commonly assigns 
26/8 space (and others) to customers and nat's it.


 
-Original message-
From:Michel Py 
Sent:Mon 07-22-2019 05:36 pm
Subject:RE: 44/8
To:William Herrin ; 
CC:North American Network Operators‘ Group ; 

As an extension of RFC1918, it would have solved the questionable and 
nevertheless widespread squatting of 30/8 and other un-announced DoD blocks 
because 10/8 is not big enough for some folks.

Michel

RE: 44/8

[Michel Py]

>> William Herrin wrote :
>> The IPv6 loonies killed all IETF proposals to convert it to unicast space. 
>> It remains reserved/unusable.

+1

> Fred Baker wrote :
> Speaking for myself, I don't see the point. It doesn't solve anything,

As an extension of RFC1918, it would have solved the questionable and 
nevertheless widespread squatting of 30/8 and other un-announced DoD blocks 
because 10/8 is not big enough for some folks.

Michel



TSI Disclaimer:  This message and any files or text attached to it are intended 
only for the recipients named above and contain information that may be 
confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not 
forward, copy, use or otherwise disclose this communication or the information 
contained herein. In the event you have received this message in error, please 
notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, and then delete all 
copies of it from your system. Thank you!...

Re: 44/8

[Paul Timmins]

And after 75 messages, nobody has asked the obvious question. When is 
ARDC going to acquire IPv6 resources on our behalf? Instead being all 
worried about legacy resources we're highly underutilizing.


Ham Radio is supposed to be about pushing the art forward. Let's do that.

-KC8QAY

On 7/22/19 6:17 PM, Fred Baker wrote:

The fundamental reason given, from several sources, was that our experience 
with IPv4 address trading says that no matter how many IPv4 addresses we create 
or recover, we won't obviate the need for a replacement protocol. The reasons 
for that are two: (1) IPv4 isn't forward compatible with anything (if it had a 
TLV or equivalent for the address, we could have simply extended the address), 
and (2) 2^32 is a finite number less than the number of addressable entities in 
the world. Yes, it would be interesting to use Class E as unicast space. The 
instant we make it possible, it will be bought up by companies and countries 
desperate to delay their IPv6 deployment - and we will then, once again, be out 
of IPv4 space.

We even had a guy write five internet drafts about how it is possible to 
enumerate more than 2^n entities with an n bit number.

Speaking for myself, I don't see the point. It doesn't solve anything, and I'm 
not sure it even meaningfully delays anything. The time has come to move to a 
protocol that allows us to enumerate the set of addressable objects without 
losing our minds.


On Jul 22, 2019, at 3:04 PM, William Herrin  wrote:

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:56 AM andrew.brant via NANOG  wrote:
Whatever happened to the entire class E block? I know it's reserved for future 
use, but sounds like that future is now given that we've exhausted all existing 
allocations.

The IPv6 loonies killed all IETF proposals to convert it to unicast space. It 
remains reserved/unusable.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: 44/8

[Fred Baker]

The fundamental reason given, from several sources, was that our experience 
with IPv4 address trading says that no matter how many IPv4 addresses we create 
or recover, we won't obviate the need for a replacement protocol. The reasons 
for that are two: (1) IPv4 isn't forward compatible with anything (if it had a 
TLV or equivalent for the address, we could have simply extended the address), 
and (2) 2^32 is a finite number less than the number of addressable entities in 
the world. Yes, it would be interesting to use Class E as unicast space. The 
instant we make it possible, it will be bought up by companies and countries 
desperate to delay their IPv6 deployment - and we will then, once again, be out 
of IPv4 space.

We even had a guy write five internet drafts about how it is possible to 
enumerate more than 2^n entities with an n bit number.

Speaking for myself, I don't see the point. It doesn't solve anything, and I'm 
not sure it even meaningfully delays anything. The time has come to move to a 
protocol that allows us to enumerate the set of addressable objects without 
losing our minds.

> On Jul 22, 2019, at 3:04 PM, William Herrin  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:56 AM andrew.brant via NANOG  
> wrote:
> Whatever happened to the entire class E block? I know it's reserved for 
> future use, but sounds like that future is now given that we've exhausted all 
> existing allocations.
> 
> The IPv6 loonies killed all IETF proposals to convert it to unicast space. It 
> remains reserved/unusable.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> -- 
> William Herrin
> b...@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: 44/8

[John Curran]

On 22 Jul 2019, at 4:44 PM, Matthew Kaufman  wrote:
> ...
> There's a bit of magic. If ARIN's board of directors decided to up and start 
> taking people's existing IPv4 allocations and selling them to Amazon to beef 
> up the ARIN scholarship fund, the recourse would include going to IANA and 
> noting that ARIN was no longer behaving as a responsible registrar for the 
> global community it serves.

Hmm – a rather interesting thought exercise.   Rather than belabor the point, I 
shall simply suggest that in such circumstances you might find yourself far 
better making use of mechanisms available both in the ARIN bylaws (and under 
Virginia state law for a non-stock membership organization) to address such a 
matter, but that’s based on my perhaps imperfect knowledge of the situation... 

> Here the amateur radio community has noted that ARDC's board of directors has 
> decided to up and start taking people's existing IPv4 allocations (including 
> a /15 in use by the German amateur radio community) and selling them to 
> Amazon to beef up the ARDC grant fund (without engaging with the global 
> community of radio amateurs who thought that net 44 was being held in trust 
> for them, or engaging with even those entities/individuals who'd already been 
> allocated address space in the block). But because ARDC isn't actually an IP 
> address registrar of global IP space for its community as delegated by IANA, 
> we're left with grasping at ARIN for some accountability here.


It is both touching (and somewhat disquieting) that you view the RIR system 
being the only available source of community accountability, but it is not 
correct – ARDC has significant obligations as non-profit public benefit 
corporation in order to remain a valid legal entity.   I imagine that there is 
now significantly more engagement between the amateur radio community and that 
organization, and one hopes it can be positively directed to further digital 
communication by the amateur radio community. 

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

Re: 44/8

[Stephen Satchell]

On 7/22/19 12:15 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
> 1.  A lot of existing code base does not know how to handle those
> addresses and may refuse to route them or will otherwise mishandle
> them.

Not to mention all the legacy devices that barely do IPv4 at all, and
know nothing about IPv6.  Legacy devices that are orphaned by their
developing companies going out of busiess or dropping all support for
the products.

I'm looking at YOU, MasterSwitch.

Re: 44/8

[Matthew Kaufman]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 1:36 PM John Curran  wrote:

> On 22 Jul 2019, at 4:17 PM, Matthew Kaufman  wrote:
>
> ...
>
>  That's why a real RIR for this space would have had a policy development
> process where *the community* could weigh in on ideas like "sell of 1/4 of
> it so we can have a big endowment". Which, heck, we might have all agreed
> to... if there was some transparency.
>
>
> Those are excellent questions for ADCR regarding its governance and
> accountability plans, but again, none of that requires any special “RIR”
> magic to accomplish; it simply takes a not-for-profit organization that
> serves its community – such entities are quite common but they require an
> active and engaged community and appropriate governance structures.
>
>
>
There's a bit of magic. If ARIN's board of directors decided to up and
start taking people's existing IPv4 allocations and selling them to Amazon
to beef up the ARIN scholarship fund, the recourse would include going to
IANA and noting that ARIN was no longer behaving as a responsible registrar
for the global community it serves.

Here the amateur radio community has noted that ARDC's board of directors
has decided to up and start taking people's existing IPv4 allocations
(including a /15 in use by the German amateur radio community) and selling
them to Amazon to beef up the ARDC grant fund (without engaging with the
global community of radio amateurs who thought that net 44 was being held
in trust for them, or engaging with even those entities/individuals who'd
already been allocated address space in the block). But because ARDC isn't
actually an IP address registrar of global IP space for its community as
delegated by IANA, we're left with grasping at ARIN for some accountability
here.

Matthew Kaufman

Re: 44/8

[Matt Harris]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 2:47 PM John Curran  wrote:

>
> In which case, I’d recommend contacting Hank Magnuski to obtain
> documentation of your particular interpretation, as there are no published
> policy documents which indicate anything other than an allocation from the
> general purpose IPv4 space for an "amateur packet radio" research network
> (and in particular nothing that would indicate that stewardship over the
> allocation should rest with any party other than the assigned contact for
> the block.)
>

I would point out here that "stewardship" and "ownership" are two very
different things. "Stewardship" refers to the day to day care and feeding
of something and generally does not confer the right to dispose of that
thing. An example might be amateur radio spectrum. The ARRL is given some
degree of stewardship over our spectrum here in the US, which is a
community resource issued by the powers that be (globally the ITU, and in
the case of the US specifically, the FCC) for those who take the time to
get licensed. They can set limitations on its use, but they cannot sell it
to Verizon. Thus, the ARRL is a steward of our amateur spectrum, which is
not "owned" by any entity but rather is held in trust as a community
resource by the FCC which allows for stewardship of that resource by the
ARRL.

Ownership would, of course, infer the right to dispose of that thing,
including by selling it in whole or in part to a third party.

Re: 44/8

[Todd Underwood]

silently deleting the thread isn't noise.  posting that was, randy.

t

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:23 PM Randy Bush  wrote:

> my deep sympathies go out to those folk with real work to do whose mail
> user agents do not have a `delete thread` key sequence.
>

Re: 44/8

[John Curran]

On 22 Jul 2019, at 4:17 PM, Matthew Kaufman 
mailto:matt...@matthew.at>> wrote:

The change in character/purpose of the network has operational impacts to me, 
and as such should have been done as an IANA action (as the original purpose 
was arguably also set by IANA action, when IANA was Jon Postel, and simply not 
documented very well):

I am the network administrator for a 501(c)(3) amateur radio club that operates 
a digital microwave network licensed via FCC Part 101 (commercial microwave), 
FCC Part 15 ("unlicensed" ISM) and FCC Part 97 (amateur radio). The Part 97 
links are, by law, restricted to amateur radio uses. One way to ensure this is 
to filter based on the fact that 44.0.0.0/8 is for 
international amateur radio use only. That has changed as a result of ARIN's 
consent to a "transfer" to an entity that will not be using these for the 
originally stated purpose. We have a /23 allocated within 
44.0.0.0/8 and it is likely that as we expand we will need 
additional address space, so the transfer of some of the unallocated space is 
of concern for that reason as well.

What *should* have happened at the time of the formation of ARIN and the other 
regional registries is that either 1) the 44.0.0.0/8 block 
have been delegated to a special-purpose RIR incorporated to manage the amateur 
radio allocations within this block (which is what ampr.org 
has been doing, but not as an IANA-recognized community-managed RIR); or 2) the 
44.0.0.0/8 block have been delegated to another RIR (e.g., 
ARIN) that could have special policies applicable only to that block and 
managed by the community.

There is no such creature as a “special purpose” RIR; Regional Internet 
Registries serve the general community in a particular geographic regions as 
described by ICANN ICP-2.

I would note that ARIN’s original “region” was actually fairly broad 
(everything not in the RIPE or APNIC regions, just as InterNIC had served), and 
this included numerous “unusual" allocations to various international projects 
such as research stations, global airline networks, consortia, and other 
purposes both of formal legal structure and otherwise.  In all cases, the 
entities successfully administer subassignments based on their own unique 
policies; it is not necessary for the IANA or an RIR to be involved in such 
special purpose networks, so long as there is a party appropriately 
administering the sub assignments for the network on behalf of the particular 
community.

I would guess that in either case, the odds that the community would have 
decided to peel off 1/4 of the space and sell it to a commercial entity would 
have been low, and that the odds that IANA would have agreed to go along with 
such a thing at least as low.

Instead we're here, because ARIN treated "Amateur Radio Digital Communications" 
not as a purpose (that happened to not be documented well via RFC or other 
process) but as an organization name that anyone could adopt, given sufficient 
documentation. Despite the fact that the block was already being used in a way 
that you'd expect an RIR to be behaving, not the way the organization has 
behaved.

Matthew - It is completely incorrect that all it took was "an organization name 
that anyone could adopt, given sufficient documentation” –≈ the organization 
name is not sufficient; you need to have the authorized contact for IP address 
block make such a request – as administration of the block was entrusted to the 
contact, and the party requesting needs to be the original registrant or their 
designated successor in a clear chain of authority.

Again, I'm sure that this was all well-intentioned... but nobody from ARDC 
asked any of the hams like me who've been sending TCP/IP over ham radio since 
it was possible, and have active allocations within the 44 net what we thought 
about this idea.
...
 That's why a real RIR for this space would have had a policy development 
process where *the community* could weigh in on ideas like "sell of 1/4 of it 
so we can have a big endowment". Which, heck, we might have all agreed to... if 
there was some transparency.

Those are excellent questions for ADCR regarding its governance and 
accountability plans, but again, none of that requires any special “RIR” magic 
to accomplish; it simply takes a not-for-profit organization that serves its 
community – such entities are quite common but they require an active and 
engaged community and appropriate governance structures.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

Re: 44/8

[Randy Bush]

my deep sympathies go out to those folk with real work to do whose mail
user agents do not have a `delete thread` key sequence.

Re: 44/8

[Matthew Kaufman]

The change in character/purpose of the network has operational impacts to
me, and as such should have been done as an IANA action (as the original
purpose was arguably also set by IANA action, when IANA was Jon Postel, and
simply not documented very well):

I am the network administrator for a 501(c)(3) amateur radio club that
operates a digital microwave network licensed via FCC Part 101 (commercial
microwave), FCC Part 15 ("unlicensed" ISM) and FCC Part 97 (amateur radio).
The Part 97 links are, by law, restricted to amateur radio uses. One way to
ensure this is to filter based on the fact that 44.0.0.0/8 is for
international amateur radio use only. That has changed as a result of
ARIN's consent to a "transfer" to an entity that will not be using these
for the originally stated purpose. We have a /23 allocated within 44.0.0.0/8
and it is likely that as we expand we will need additional address space,
so the transfer of some of the unallocated space is of concern for that
reason as well.

What *should* have happened at the time of the formation of ARIN and the
other regional registries is that either 1) the 44.0.0.0/8 block have been
delegated to a special-purpose RIR incorporated to manage the amateur radio
allocations within this block (which is what ampr.org has been doing, but
not as an IANA-recognized community-managed RIR); or 2) the 44.0.0.0/8 block
have been delegated to another RIR (e.g., ARIN) that could have special
policies applicable only to that block and managed by the community.

I would guess that in either case, the odds that the community would have
decided to peel off 1/4 of the space and sell it to a commercial entity
would have been low, and that the odds that IANA would have agreed to go
along with such a thing at least as low.

Instead we're here, because ARIN treated "Amateur Radio Digital
Communications" not as a purpose (that happened to not be documented well
via RFC or other process) but as an organization name that anyone could
adopt, given sufficient documentation. Despite the fact that the block was
already being used in a way that you'd expect an RIR to be behaving, not
the way the organization has behaved.

Again, I'm sure that this was all well-intentioned... but nobody from ARDC
asked any of the hams like me who've been sending TCP/IP over ham radio
since it was possible, and have active allocations within the 44 net what
we thought about this idea. And nobody from ARIN asked us if we thought
ARDC was a suitable proxy for our interests in the special use of the space
either when the registration was transferred to the corporation or when the
registration stopped being used solely for its original purpose. That's why
a real RIR for this space would have had a policy development process where
*the community* could weigh in on ideas like "sell of 1/4 of it so we can
have a big endowment". Which, heck, we might have all agreed to... if there
was some transparency.

Matthew Kaufman


On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 12:26 PM John Curran  wrote:

> On 22 Jul 2019, at 1:16 PM, William Herrin  wrote:
> >
> > Respectfully John, this wasn't a DBA or an individual figuring the org
> name field on the old email template couldn't be blank. A class-A was
> allocated to a _purpose_.
>
> Bill -
>
> The block in question is a /8 research assignment made with a particular
> network name and a particular responsible technical contact, just as so
> many other research networks during that period; indeed, if that is what
> you meant by “purpose”, then you are correct.   Like so many of those early
> research networks, the evolution of the block over time was under control
> of the contact listed in the registry, and resulted in some being returned,
> some ending up with commercial firms, some with not-for-profit entities,
> etc.
>
> In the case of AMRPNET, in 2011 ARIN did approve update of the
> registration to a public benefit not-for-profit at the request of the
> registered contact.
>
> > You've not only allowed but encouraged that valuable resource to be
> reassigned to an organization, this ARDC, and then treated the organization
> as a proxy for the purpose. No one asked you to do that.
>
> Again, ARIN was specifically requested to do exactly that by the
> authoritative contact, and it was correct to proceed given that the IP
> block was a general purpose IP address block absent any other policy
> guidance.
>
> > Nothing in the publicly vetted policies demanded that you attach
> organizations to the purpose-based allocations
>
> You’ve suggested that this network was some special “purpose-based”
> allocation, but failed to point to any actual policy guidance that
> distinguishes it in that manner.Note that we do have many such
> documents that identify a variety of purpose-based allocations – for
> example, RFC 5737 ("IPv4 Address Blocks Reserved for Documentation”),  RFC
> 6598 for 'Shared Address Space' for CGN, etc.  If you do have a IETF or
> IANA policy document applicable to 

Re: 44/8

[Tom Beecher]

So wall of text, but here is the RFC chain.

Hank Magnuski was the original person marked as the 'reference', which is
interpreted as 'responsible individual' in these documents.  This changed
in 1987, when Philip R. Karn was now reflected in that field.

The last RFC I can find that explicitly calls out 44.0.0.0/8 was 1166 ,
July 1990, again with Phil Karn as the reference, or responsible
individual.


==

Original assignment of 44 in RFC 790 : Sept 1981

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc790

...
044.rrr.rrr.rrr   AMPRNET   Amature Radio Experiment Net  [HM]
044.rrr.rrr.rrr-126.rrr.rrr.rrr Unassigned   [JBP]
...

[HM]  Hank Magnuski   ---   JOSE@PARC-MAXC

==

Ambiguity corrected in RFC 820:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc820

...
R 044.rrr.rrr.rrr   AMPRNET   Amateur Radio Experiment Net[HM]
R 045.rrr.rrr.rrr T C3-PR Testbed Development PRNET  [BG5]
...

[HM]  Hank Magnuski   ---   JOSE@PARC-MAXC

==

Maintains references to "Amateur Radio Experiment Net" through multiple
RFCs:

870
900
923
943
960
990
997

==

Reference field changes from [HM] to [PK28] in RFC 1020 : Nov 1987
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1020

[PK28]Philip R. Karn, Jr. BCR   k...@flash.bellcore.com

==

"Amateur Radio Experiment Net" disappears, only AMPRNET listed in RFC 1166 :

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1166

...
R*43.rrr.rrr.rrr JAPAN-A   [JM292]
R 44.rrr.rrr.rrr AMPRNET   [PK28]
 45.rrr.rrr.rrr Reserved  [NIC]
...

==

RFC 1166 Updated by RFC 5737, creation of documentation blocks. No
references to 44/8.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5737

==



On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 3:49 PM John Curran  wrote:

> On 22 Jul 2019, at 3:35 PM, William Herrin  wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 12:24 PM John Curran  wrote:
>
>> > Nothing in the publicly vetted policies demanded that you attach
>> organizations to the purpose-based allocations
>>
>> You’ve suggested that this network was some special “purpose-based”
>> allocation, but failed to point to any actual policy guidance that
>> distinguishes it in that manner.
>
>
> John,
>
> As admitted at https://www.ampr.org/amprnet/, Hank Magnuski and Jon
> Postel thought it was a swell idea and simply did it.
>
>
> Bill -
>
> In which case, I’d recommend contacting Hank Magnuski to obtain
> documentation of your particular interpretation, as there are no published
> policy documents which indicate anything other than an allocation from the
> general purpose IPv4 space for an "amateur packet radio" research network
> (and in particular nothing that would indicate that stewardship over the
> allocation should rest with any party other than the assigned contact for
> the block.)
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: 44/8

[John Curran]

On 22 Jul 2019, at 3:35 PM, William Herrin 
mailto:b...@herrin.us>> wrote:

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 12:24 PM John Curran 
mailto:jcur...@arin.net>> wrote:
> Nothing in the publicly vetted policies demanded that you attach 
> organizations to the purpose-based allocations

You’ve suggested that this network was some special “purpose-based” allocation, 
but failed to point to any actual policy guidance that distinguishes it in that 
manner.

John,

As admitted at https://www.ampr.org/amprnet/, Hank Magnuski and Jon Postel 
thought it was a swell idea and simply did it.

Bill -

In which case, I’d recommend contacting Hank Magnuski to obtain documentation 
of your particular interpretation, as there are no published policy documents 
which indicate anything other than an allocation from the general purpose IPv4 
space for an "amateur packet radio" research network (and in particular nothing 
that would indicate that stewardship over the allocation should rest with any 
party other than the assigned contact for the block.)

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

Re: 44/8

[William Herrin]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 12:24 PM John Curran  wrote:

> > Nothing in the publicly vetted policies demanded that you attach
> organizations to the purpose-based allocations
>
> You’ve suggested that this network was some special “purpose-based”
> allocation, but failed to point to any actual policy guidance that
> distinguishes it in that manner.


John,

As admitted at https://www.ampr.org/amprnet/, Hank Magnuski and Jon Postel
thought it was a swell idea and simply did it. If you have a different
interpretation of that history, one that involves Hank Magnuski and his
successors having some kind of ownership of the block independent of its
purpose, I'd love to hear it.

As I recall, you were specifically asked to provide such an interpretation
earlier in this thread but explained that ARIN doesn't comment on
individual assignments.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: 44/8

[John Curran]

On 22 Jul 2019, at 1:16 PM, William Herrin  wrote:
> 
> Respectfully John, this wasn't a DBA or an individual figuring the org name 
> field on the old email template couldn't be blank. A class-A was allocated to 
> a _purpose_.

Bill - 

The block in question is a /8 research assignment made with a particular 
network name and a particular responsible technical contact, just as so many 
other research networks during that period; indeed, if that is what you meant 
by “purpose”, then you are correct.   Like so many of those early research 
networks, the evolution of the block over time was under control of the contact 
listed in the registry, and resulted in some being returned, some ending up 
with commercial firms, some with not-for-profit entities, etc.   

In the case of AMRPNET, in 2011 ARIN did approve update of the registration to 
a public benefit not-for-profit at the request of the registered contact.   

> You've not only allowed but encouraged that valuable resource to be 
> reassigned to an organization, this ARDC, and then treated the organization 
> as a proxy for the purpose. No one asked you to do that.

Again, ARIN was specifically requested to do exactly that by the authoritative 
contact, and it was correct to proceed given that the IP block was a general 
purpose IP address block absent any other policy guidance. 

> Nothing in the publicly vetted policies demanded that you attach 
> organizations to the purpose-based allocations

You’ve suggested that this network was some special “purpose-based” allocation, 
but failed to point to any actual policy guidance that distinguishes it in that 
manner.Note that we do have many such documents that identify a variety of 
purpose-based allocations – for example, RFC 5737 ("IPv4 Address Blocks 
Reserved for Documentation”),  RFC 6598 for 'Shared Address Space' for CGN, 
etc.  If you do have a IETF or IANA policy document applicable to AMPRNET that 
somehow has been overlooked, please provide it to ARIN as part of an Internet 
number resource fraud report, and we will promptly review and investigate. 

In the meantime, if you are curious about the actual IPv4 special-purpose 
assignments, you can find the complete list here: 
https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-special-registry.xhtml
 – there’s quite a few, but AMPRNET is not one of them. 

Thanks, 
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

Re: 44/8

[Matt Hoppes]

The agreement in using the space specifically has you agree you were not using 
it for commercial purposes.

Don’t be quick to jump to assumptions, we are an ISP but applied for a/24 so 
that we could advertise it out because we have a large number of amateur radio 
repeaters another amateur radio devices on our network.

> On Jul 22, 2019, at 7:18 AM, Joe Carroll  wrote:
> 
> I’ll add to this in saying that I’m a qualified amateur radio licensed 
> 
> Two issues:
> 
> I’ve been denied access to the space twice.
> 
> Commercial entities are advertising within the space that are not amateur 
> related. 
> 
> The fish smell permeates  
> 
>> On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 07:34 William Herrin  wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 9:26 PM Jay R. Ashworth  wrote:
>>> - Original Message -
>>> > From: "William Herrin" 
>>> 
>>> > Personally I've never heard of ARDC. 
>>> 
>>> Amateur Radio Digital Communications is the name that's been on 44/8 every 
>>> time I've ever looked at the /8 list, which goes back 2 decades or more.
>>> 
>>> I never assumed it was an organization at the time.
>> 
>> Yeah... It just seems like holding an asset in trust for a population and 
>> selling that asset without consulting that population (or at least 
>> consulting the organizations the population commonly understands to 
>> represent them) is very fishy business.
>> 
>> Having read their explanation, I think the folks involved had good reasons 
>> and the best intentions but this stinks like fraud to me. Worse, it looks 
>> like ARIN was complicit in the fraud -- encouraging and then supporting the 
>> folks involved as they established a fiefdom of their own rather than 
>> integrating with the organizations that existed. The "appearance of 
>> impropriety" is then magnified by ARIN deeming the matter a private 
>> transaction between it and the alleged registrants to which the pubic is not 
>> entitled to a detailed accounting.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Bill Herrin
>> 
>> -- 
>> William Herrin
>> b...@herrin.us
>> https://bill.herrin.us/

RE: 44/8

[Naslund, Steve]

I think the Class E block has been covered before.  There were two reasons to 
not re-allocate it.


1.  A lot of existing code base does not know how to handle those addresses 
and may refuse to route them or will otherwise mishandle them.

2.  It was decided that squeezing every bit of space out of the v4 
allocations only served to delay the desired v6 deployment.

This is my recollection and might be flawed.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL

>Whatever happened to the entire class E block? I know it's reserved for future 
>use, but sounds like that future is now given that we've exhausted all 
>existing >allocations.

Re: 44/8

[William Herrin]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 12:04 PM William Herrin  wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:56 AM andrew.brant via NANOG 
> wrote:
>
>> Whatever happened to the entire class E block? I know it's reserved for
>> future use, but sounds like that future is now given that we've exhausted
>> all existing allocations.
>>
>
> The IPv6 loonies killed all IETF proposals to convert it to unicast space.
> It remains reserved/unusable.
>

I should clarify: I see IPv6 advocates and IPv6 loonies. The difference
between the advocates and the loonies is that the loonies want to
force-fail IPv4 to "encourage" the move to IPv6.

-Bill


-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: 44/8

[William Herrin]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:56 AM andrew.brant via NANOG 
wrote:

> Whatever happened to the entire class E block? I know it's reserved for
> future use, but sounds like that future is now given that we've exhausted
> all existing allocations.
>

The IPv6 loonies killed all IETF proposals to convert it to unicast space.
It remains reserved/unusable.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: 44/8

[andrew.brant via NANOG]

Whatever happened to the entire class E block? I know it's reserved for future 
use, but sounds like that future is now given that we've exhausted all existing 
allocations.Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
 Original message From: William Herrin  Date: 
7/22/19  12:16 PM  (GMT-06:00) To: John Curran  Cc: North 
American Network Operators' Group  Subject: Re: 44/8 On Mon, 
Jul 22, 2019 at 6:02 AM John Curran  wrote:> On 21 Jul 2019, 
at 7:32 AM, William Herrin  wrote:> > Having read their 
explanation, I think the folks involved had good > > reasons and the best 
intentions but this stinks like fraud to me. Worse,> > it looks like ARIN was 
complicit in the fraud -- encouraging and then > > supporting the folks 
involved as they established a fiefdom of their own> >rather than integrating 
with the organizations that existed.>> As you are aware, there are individuals 
and businesses who operate as>a “Doing Business As/DBA" or on behalf on an 
unincorporated organization>at the time of issuance; it is a more common 
occurrence than one might imagine,>and we have to deal with the early 
registrations appropriately based on the>particular circumstance.   ARIN 
promptly put processes in place so that such>registrations, having been made on 
behalf of a particular purpose or organization,>do not get misappropriated to 
become rights solely of the point of contact held for>personal gain – indeed, 
there are cases where organizations are created with>similar names for the 
purposes of hijacking number resources, but such cases>don’t generally involve 
principles who were involved in the administration of the>resources since 
issuance nor do they involve formalization of the registrant into>a public 
benefit not-for-profit organization.Respectfully John, this wasn't a DBA or an 
individual figuring the org name field on the old email template couldn't be 
blank. A class-A was allocated to a _purpose_. You've not only allowed but 
encouraged that valuable resource to be reassigned to an organization, this 
ARDC, and then treated the organization as a proxy for the purpose. No one 
asked you to do that. Nothing in the publicly vetted policies demanded that you 
attach organizations to the purpose-based allocations and certainly nothing 
demanded that you grant such organizations identical control over the resources 
as the control possessed by folks who were the intended direct recipients of 
assignments.I guess you thought that would avoid having ARIN make judgement 
calls each time about whether the registrant for a purpose-based allocation was 
acting in the best interest of the purpose? It doesn't. It just makes ARIN look 
like a party to fraud.Regards,Bill Herrin-- William 
Herrinbill@herrin.ushttps://bill.herrin.us/

Re: 44/8

[Joe Carroll]

I’ll add to this in saying that I’m a qualified amateur radio licensed

Two issues:

I’ve been denied access to the space twice.

Commercial entities are advertising within the space that are not amateur
related.

The fish smell permeates

On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 07:34 William Herrin  wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 9:26 PM Jay R. Ashworth  wrote:
>
>> - Original Message -
>> > From: "William Herrin" 
>>
>> > Personally I've never heard of ARDC.
>>
>> Amateur Radio Digital Communications is the name that's been on 44/8
>> every
>> time I've ever looked at the /8 list, which goes back 2 decades or more.
>>
>> I never assumed it was an organization at the time.
>>
>
> Yeah... It just seems like holding an asset in trust for a population and
> selling that asset without consulting that population (or at least
> consulting the organizations the population commonly understands to
> represent them) is very fishy business.
>
> Having read their explanation, I think the folks involved had good reasons
> and the best intentions but this stinks like fraud to me. Worse, it looks
> like ARIN was complicit in the fraud -- encouraging and then supporting the
> folks involved as they established a fiefdom of their own rather than
> integrating with the organizations that existed. The "appearance of
> impropriety" is then magnified by ARIN deeming the matter a private
> transaction between it and the alleged registrants to which the pubic is
> not entitled to a detailed accounting.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
> --
> William Herrin
> b...@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
>

Re: 44/8

[Seth Mattinen]

On 7/22/19 10:16 AM, William Herrin wrote:


Respectfully John, this wasn't a DBA or an individual figuring the org 
name field on the old email template couldn't be blank. A class-A was 
allocated to a _purpose_. You've not only allowed but encouraged that 
valuable resource to be reassigned to an organization, this ARDC, and 
then treated the organization as a proxy for the purpose. No one asked 
you to do that. Nothing in the publicly vetted policies demanded that 
you attach organizations to the purpose-based allocations and certainly 
nothing demanded that you grant such organizations identical control 
over the resources as the control possessed by folks who were the 
intended direct recipients of assignments.



From the outside it kind of looks like someone created an org that 
didn't exist before but matched the name in whois and said "oh yeah 
that's ours, says so right there".

Re: 44/8

[William Herrin]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 6:02 AM John Curran  wrote:
> On 21 Jul 2019, at 7:32 AM, William Herrin  wrote:
> > Having read their explanation, I think the folks involved had good
> > reasons and the best intentions but this stinks like fraud to me. Worse,
> > it looks like ARIN was complicit in the fraud -- encouraging and then
> > supporting the folks involved as they established a fiefdom of their own
> >rather than integrating with the organizations that existed.
>
> As you are aware, there are individuals and businesses who operate as
>a “Doing Business As/DBA" or on behalf on an unincorporated organization
>at the time of issuance; it is a more common occurrence than one might
imagine,
>and we have to deal with the early registrations appropriately based on the
>particular circumstance.   ARIN promptly put processes in place so that
such
>registrations, having been made on behalf of a particular purpose or
organization,
>do not get misappropriated to become rights solely of the point of contact
held for
>personal gain – indeed, there are cases where organizations are created
with
>similar names for the purposes of hijacking number resources, but such
cases
>don’t generally involve principles who were involved in the administration
of the
>resources since issuance nor do they involve formalization of the
registrant into
>a public benefit not-for-profit organization.

Respectfully John, this wasn't a DBA or an individual figuring the org name
field on the old email template couldn't be blank. A class-A was allocated
to a _purpose_. You've not only allowed but encouraged that valuable
resource to be reassigned to an organization, this ARDC, and then treated
the organization as a proxy for the purpose. No one asked you to do that.
Nothing in the publicly vetted policies demanded that you attach
organizations to the purpose-based allocations and certainly nothing
demanded that you grant such organizations identical control over the
resources as the control possessed by folks who were the intended direct
recipients of assignments.

I guess you thought that would avoid having ARIN make judgement calls each
time about whether the registrant for a purpose-based allocation was acting
in the best interest of the purpose? It doesn't. It just makes ARIN look
like a party to fraud.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: 44/8

[John Curran]

On 21 Jul 2019, at 7:32 AM, William Herrin  wrote:
> 
> Having read their explanation, I think the folks involved had good reasons 
> and the best intentions but this stinks like fraud to me. Worse, it looks 
> like ARIN was complicit in the fraud -- encouraging and then supporting the 
> folks involved as they established a fiefdom of their own rather than 
> integrating with the organizations that existed.

Bill - 

ARIN routinely deals situations where the point of contact for a number 
resource did not have a formal organization at the time of issuance of the IP 
address block, and we are quite careful to make sure that the appropriate 
pedigree is maintained. 

It is important to realize that ARIN doesn’t automatically consider the 
responsible contact to be authoritative for an early assignment for any change 
requested (i.e. an early administrative contact cannot simply usurp an address 
block for any purpose they desire) but we do indeed recognize organization 
changes (such as incorporation) that are consistent with the original listed 
registrant and supported by the current administrative contact for the 
resource. 

As you are aware, there are individuals and businesses who operate as a “Doing 
Business As/DBA" or on behalf on an unincorporated organization at the time of 
issuance; it is a more common occurrence than one might imagine, and we have to 
deal with the early registrations appropriately based on the particular 
circumstance.   ARIN promptly put processes in place so that such 
registrations, having been made on behalf of a particular purpose or 
organization, do not get misappropriated to become rights solely of the point 
of contact held for personal gain – indeed, there are cases where organizations 
are created with similar names for the purposes of hijacking number resources, 
but such cases don’t generally involve principles who were involved in the 
administration of the resources since issuance nor do they involve 
formalization of the registrant into a public benefit not-for-profit 
organization.

Despite your assertions, it is not for ARIN to judge whether a given early 
number resource was issued to the “best” responsible contact/organization for 
the job; it is our job to simply maintain the registry according the policies 
set by the IETF and this community – to do anything else would result in 
haphazard administration and undermine the stability of the entire registry. 

> The "appearance of impropriety" is then magnified by ARIN deeming the matter 
> a private transaction between it and the alleged registrants to which the 
> pubic is not entitled to a detailed accounting.

As you are aware, Bill, number resource requests to ARIN are private, but the 
results end up quite visible in the public registry and there is a reporting 
process if you believe that any change has been made based on fraudulent 
information. 

If the folks would like number resource requests (such as transfer requests) to 
be public when submitted to ARIN, that is also possible, but would require very 
specific policy directing us accordingly.  I do not know if the community would 
support such a change, but if you are interested in proposing such then you 
should review  for 
instructions on submission of a policy proposal. 

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

Re: 44/8

[Sabri Berisha]

- On Jul 21, 2019, at 4:48 AM, nanog nanog@nanog.org wrote:

Hi,

> All of this puts more pressure on the access networks to keep IPv4 running and
> inflates the price of the remaining IPv4 addresses.

Exactly. Which means that the problem will solve itself.

Why is it taking so long to get IPv6 adopted? I'll tell you why: because the 
cost does not outweigh the benefits at this time. To /you/ they may, but to the 
average corporate bean counter they don't. Money and resources spent on an IPv6 
study and migration project today, will not provide an ROI tomorrow. They will 
/maybe/ provide a modest ROI in a few years from now, if any. So why would an 
SVP of Platform Engineering spend his budget on IPv6? 

Only when it becomes cheaper to go IPv6 than to use legacy V4 will V6 be 
adopted by large corporations. Well, the ones that are governed by beancounters 
instead of engineers. And by that time, I'll be charging $500/hr to assist 
$CORP with their IPv6 migration plans.

Thanks,

Sabri
JNCIE #261

Re: 44/8

[Bryan Fields]

On 7/21/19 7:32 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> Yeah... It just seems like holding an asset in trust for a population and
> selling that asset without consulting that population (or at least
> consulting the organizations the population commonly understands to
> represent them) is very fishy business.

This is the major problem, lack of community involvement.  It's a world wide
resource, but it's use has been hamstrung by the people in charge for years.

> Having read their explanation, I think the folks involved had good reasons
> and the best intentions but this stinks like fraud to me. Worse, it looks
> like ARIN was complicit in the fraud -- encouraging and then supporting the
> folks involved as they established a fiefdom of their own rather than
> integrating with the organizations that existed. The "appearance of
> impropriety" is then magnified by ARIN deeming the matter a private
> transaction between it and the alleged registrants to which the pubic is
> not entitled to a detailed accounting.

You know what they say about good intentions.

https://imgflip.com/i/362r0m

-- 
Bryan Fields

727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net

Re: 44/8

[Aled Morris via NANOG]

The biggest tragedy here is that Amazon now have yet another block of IPv4
which means the migration to IPv6 will be further delayed by them and
people who "can't see the need" because their AWS server instance can get
an IPv4 address.

All of this puts more pressure on the access networks to keep IPv4 running
and inflates the price of the remaining IPv4 addresses.

We need to be pulling together to make https://ipv4flagday.net/ a reality.
No more IPv4.

Aled


On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 at 12:35, William Herrin  wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 9:26 PM Jay R. Ashworth  wrote:
>
>> - Original Message -
>> > From: "William Herrin" 
>>
>> > Personally I've never heard of ARDC.
>>
>> Amateur Radio Digital Communications is the name that's been on 44/8
>> every
>> time I've ever looked at the /8 list, which goes back 2 decades or more.
>>
>> I never assumed it was an organization at the time.
>>
>
> Yeah... It just seems like holding an asset in trust for a population and
> selling that asset without consulting that population (or at least
> consulting the organizations the population commonly understands to
> represent them) is very fishy business.
>
> Having read their explanation, I think the folks involved had good reasons
> and the best intentions but this stinks like fraud to me. Worse, it looks
> like ARIN was complicit in the fraud -- encouraging and then supporting the
> folks involved as they established a fiefdom of their own rather than
> integrating with the organizations that existed. The "appearance of
> impropriety" is then magnified by ARIN deeming the matter a private
> transaction between it and the alleged registrants to which the pubic is
> not entitled to a detailed accounting.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
> --
> William Herrin
> b...@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
>

Re: 44/8

[William Herrin]

On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 9:26 PM Jay R. Ashworth  wrote:

> - Original Message -
> > From: "William Herrin" 
>
> > Personally I've never heard of ARDC.
>
> Amateur Radio Digital Communications is the name that's been on 44/8 every
> time I've ever looked at the /8 list, which goes back 2 decades or more.
>
> I never assumed it was an organization at the time.
>

Yeah... It just seems like holding an asset in trust for a population and
selling that asset without consulting that population (or at least
consulting the organizations the population commonly understands to
represent them) is very fishy business.

Having read their explanation, I think the folks involved had good reasons
and the best intentions but this stinks like fraud to me. Worse, it looks
like ARIN was complicit in the fraud -- encouraging and then supporting the
folks involved as they established a fiefdom of their own rather than
integrating with the organizations that existed. The "appearance of
impropriety" is then magnified by ARIN deeming the matter a private
transaction between it and the alleged registrants to which the pubic is
not entitled to a detailed accounting.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: 44/8

[Jay R. Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "William Herrin" 

> Personally I've never heard of ARDC. 

Amateur Radio Digital Communications is the name that's been on 44/8 every 
time I've ever looked at the /8 list, which goes back 2 decades or more.

I never assumed it was an organization at the time.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: 44/8

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 6:02 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:

> I honestly don’t know who is behind ARDC (the organization), but some of
> the names bandied about are people I know and believe to be deserving of
> the benefit of the doubt. As such, I’m still trying to learn more before I
> go full tilt hostile on this, but it seems to me that something is
> definitely rotten in the state here.
>

Personally I've never heard of ARDC. The name I hear is ARRL, the American
Radio Relay League. The name I'll hear when I go to the Hamfest (Ham Radio
swap meet) in Chehalis tomorrow morning is ARRL. It's the same name I heard
at the big annual meet in Dayton and the smaller hamfests I went to back in
Virginia and Maryland. If a /8 was allocated for amateur radio and someone
was needed to formally administer it, I'm not clear why it wouldn't happen
under the umbrella of ARRL.

Their side of the story is at https://www.ampr.org/amprnet/

The nutshell is, "It was our unanimous decision to place one quarter of the
AMPRNet address space on the market and to prudently invest the proceeds of
that sale in what we hope will be a perpetual endowment."

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: 44/8

[Owen DeLong]

I think there is a key misconception here. 

The original IANA delegation to “Amateur Radio Digital Communication” was not 
to any organization with such a name, but was a statement of the purpose of the 
delegation. An individual who initiated the process took on the administration 
of the block in trust on behalf of the global amateur radio community. At the 
time of this allocation, there was only one global IP address registry and no 
such thing as an RIR. 

The subsequent formation of an organization by that name and transfer of 
administrative control into that organization went largely without objection by 
the amateur radio community because:

1. Most of us probably didn’t even know it happened. 

2. Those that did likely expected this organization to continue as previous 
administrators in trust on behalf of the community. 

From my perspective, the delegation of a large block to CAIDA for an unrelated 
purpose now looks like an initial test of “can we get away with this”. 

I honestly don’t know who is behind ARDC (the organization), but some of the 
names bandied about are people I know and believe to be deserving of the 
benefit of the doubt. As such, I’m still trying to learn more before I go full 
tilt hostile on this, but it seems to me that something is definitely rotten in 
the state here. 

Once I have a few more facts (or believe I’m unlikely to be able to get them), 
I’ll be filing a fraud report with ARIN. 

I encourage others with any relevant information or knowledge of the history of 
44/8 to do the same. 

Owen


> On Jul 19, 2019, at 08:34, Matt Harris  wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 10:29 AM John Curran  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Matt - 
>> 
>> Chris is correct.   Those who received IPv4 address blocks by InterNIC (or 
>> its predecessors) prior to the inception of ARIN on 22 December 1997 are 
>> legacy resource holders, and continue to receive those same registry 
>> services for those blocks (Whois, reverse DNS, ability to update) without 
>> any need for an agreement with ARIN.  This has been provided without any fee 
>> to the original registrants (or their legal successors) as recognition of 
>> their contributions to the early Internet.
> 
> Hey John, I understand that, however my understanding is that the 
> establishment of an ARIN RSA is required prior to the transfer of a block or 
> a portion or a block via ARIN (such as the transfer of 44.192/10). Thus, this 
> would mean that the 44/8 block is now governed by an (well, more than one, 
> now that it's split) ARIN RSA (or LRSA) whereas it was not before.  Is that 
> not correct?  
> 
> Thanks! 
> 

Re: 44/8

[Jon Lewis]

On Fri, 19 Jul 2019, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:


On Fri, 19 Jul 2019, Phil Karn wrote:


 And one of the principal people in the network telescope project was KC,
 who also weaseled herself onto the ARDC board without even holding an
 amateur radio license.  Conflict of interest here, holy carp.


 You are not in possession of all the facts.

 KC (Kim Claffy) is KC6KCC.


https://www.fccbulletin.com/callsign/?q=KC6KCC

The grant date was 2018-02-21.

So both of the above statements can be true at the same time since I have no 
idea when KC joined the ARDC board. When was that?


Also, reading: http://wiki.ampr.org/wiki/ARDC

"It solely manages and allocates Internet address space, subnets of network 
44 (AMPRNet), to interested Amateur Radio operators."


Seems ARDC does more than this nowadays.


Not meaning to pour fuel on the fire...but KC was affiliated with (CFO) 
ARDC at least as far back as 2015.  Do a search for Amateur Radio Digital 
Communications at https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/CBS/Detail


Also of interest, ARDC was only incorporated (in CA) in 2011, 
"anonymously" since the Articles of Incorporation filed with the state in 
2011 are signed with no printed name, using an illegible signature.


How does an organization incorporated years after 44/8 was set aside for 
amatuer radio use end up "owning" it enough to have the right to sell a 
portion of it?


--
 Jon Lewis, MCP :)   |  I route
 |  therefore you are
_ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_

Re: 44/8

[Mel Beckman]

Please take this off-topic argument off the Nanog list.

-mel via cell

> On Jul 19, 2019, at 11:17 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 19 Jul 2019, Phil Karn wrote:
> 
>>> And one of the principal people in the network telescope project was KC, 
>>> who also weaseled herself onto the ARDC board without even holding an 
>>> amateur radio license.  Conflict of interest here, holy carp.
>> 
>> You are not in possession of all the facts.
>> 
>> KC (Kim Claffy) is KC6KCC.
> 
> https://www.fccbulletin.com/callsign/?q=KC6KCC
> 
> The grant date was 2018-02-21.
> 
> So both of the above statements can be true at the same time since I have no 
> idea when KC joined the ARDC board. When was that?
> 
> Also, reading: http://wiki.ampr.org/wiki/ARDC
> 
> "It solely manages and allocates Internet address space, subnets of network 
> 44 (AMPRNet), to interested Amateur Radio operators."
> 
> Seems ARDC does more than this nowadays.
> 
> -- 
> Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: 44/8

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Fri, 19 Jul 2019, Phil Karn wrote:

And one of the principal people in the network telescope project was 
KC, who also weaseled herself onto the ARDC board without even holding 
an amateur radio license.  Conflict of interest here, holy carp.


You are not in possession of all the facts.

KC (Kim Claffy) is KC6KCC.


https://www.fccbulletin.com/callsign/?q=KC6KCC

The grant date was 2018-02-21.

So both of the above statements can be true at the same time since I have 
no idea when KC joined the ARDC board. When was that?


Also, reading: http://wiki.ampr.org/wiki/ARDC

"It solely manages and allocates Internet address space, subnets of 
network 44 (AMPRNet), to interested Amateur Radio operators."


Seems ARDC does more than this nowadays.

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: 44/8

[Phil Karn]

> And one of the principal people in the network telescope project was
> KC, who
> also weaseled herself onto the ARDC board without even holding an amateur
> radio license.  Conflict of interest here, holy carp.

You are not in possession of all the facts.

KC (Kim Claffy) is KC6KCC.

--Phil

Re: 44/8

[John Curran]

On 19 Jul 2019, at 11:50 AM, Matt Harris 
mailto:m...@netfire.net>> wrote:

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 10:41 AM John Curran 
mailto:jcur...@arin.net>> wrote:
On 19 Jul 2019, at 11:34 AM, Matt Harris 
mailto:m...@netfire.net>> wrote:
Hey John, I understand that, however my understanding is that the establishment 
of an ARIN RSA is required prior to the transfer of a block or a portion or a 
block via ARIN (such as the transfer of 44.192/10). Thus, this would mean that 
the 44/8 block is now governed by an (well, more than one, now that it's split) 
ARIN RSA (or LRSA) whereas it was not before.  Is that not correct?

Matt -

ARIN doesn’t discuss details of specific registrations publicly; you need to 
refer any such questions to the registrant.

Without discussing any specific registration whatsoever, my understanding is 
that what I stated is the case as a matter of policy. Was just looking for 
confirmation that my reading of ARIN policy docs was not incorrect. :)

Matt -

Legacy resource holders may transfer a portion of their number resources 
without bringing the entire block under a registration services agreement.

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

Re: 44/8

[Tom Beecher]

Good deal. Thanks John, have a great weekend!

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 11:52 AM John Curran  wrote:

> On 19 Jul 2019, at 11:46 AM, Tom Beecher  wrote:
>
>
> Understood on specifics. But can you comment on the general ARIN policy on
> the topic? My understanding was that once a legacy resource was transferred
> , it was permanently removed as a legacy resource.
>
>
> As noted earlier, general ARIN policy is as follows -
>
> *Those who received IPv4 address blocks by InterNIC (or its predecessors)
> prior to the inception of ARIN on 22 December 1997 are legacy resource
> holders, and continue to receive those same registry services for those
> blocks (Whois, reverse DNS, ability to update) without any need for an
> agreement with ARIN.  This has been provided without any fee to the
> original registrants (or their legal successors) as recognition of their
> contributions to the early Internet.*
>
> *Some legacy resource holders opt to sign a “legacy registration services
> agreement” by which ARIN provides specific and well-defined legal rights to
> the registrant – this is the same RSA as other ARIN customers, but ARIN
> caps the total annual maintenance fees that are incurred by legacy resource
> holders.  An RSA is also required to receive services that the community
> has funded the developed since ARIN’s inception, such as resource
> certification services. *
>
>
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>
>

Re: 44/8

[John Curran]

On 19 Jul 2019, at 11:46 AM, Tom Beecher 
mailto:beec...@beecher.cc>> wrote:

Understood on specifics. But can you comment on the general ARIN policy on the 
topic? My understanding was that once a legacy resource was transferred , it 
was permanently removed as a legacy resource.

As noted earlier, general ARIN policy is as follows -

Those who received IPv4 address blocks by InterNIC (or its predecessors) prior 
to the inception of ARIN on 22 December 1997 are legacy resource holders, and 
continue to receive those same registry services for those blocks (Whois, 
reverse DNS, ability to update) without any need for an agreement with ARIN.  
This has been provided without any fee to the original registrants (or their 
legal successors) as recognition of their contributions to the early Internet.

Some legacy resource holders opt to sign a “legacy registration services 
agreement” by which ARIN provides specific and well-defined legal rights to the 
registrant – this is the same RSA as other ARIN customers, but ARIN caps the 
total annual maintenance fees that are incurred by legacy resource holders.  An 
RSA is also required to receive services that the community has funded the 
developed since ARIN’s inception, such as resource certification services.


Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers