Re: [arin-ppml] Fraud reporting question
This is probably not the right place to ask, but I'm unsure where to best ask. And at least it's somewhat relevant given recent talk of large actors in the CNNIC area gaming ARIN... 1) when someone submits a fraud report to ARIN, how are they supposed to communicate additional information on that ticket? Nothing in the responses from ARIN provide a URL or email address for submitting further information. If the complainant submits further information through the fraud reporting form online, a brand new ticket gets created with no linkage to the original. 2) how long should someone expect to wait to hear back from a human? Even an acknowledgement (non-automated) would go a long way to addressing the feeling most people would have that their submission went into a black hole. 3) why can't I submit a fraud report if I'm logged in to ARIN online? Claiming it's about anonymity is questionable when any complainant has to provide contact info anyway! So, not policy-related per se, yet it sort-of is. -Adam -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. Adam – I wanted to acknowledge receipt of your questions posted to PPML and let you know that we will respond as soon as possible. Many of us, involved in the responses to your questions, are in various meetings today but will reply back to you (and PPML) as soon as we can. Regards, Nate Davis Chief Operating Officer American Registry for Internet Numbers ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers
Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7 Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers On 18 June 2015 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted ARIN-prop-221 Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers as a Draft Policy. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7 is below and can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_7.html You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft Policy 2015-7 on the Public Policy Mailing List. The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are: * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration * Technically Sound * Supported by the Community The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7 Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers Date: 23 June 2015 Problem statement: ARIN transfer policy currently inherits all its demonstrated need requirements for IPv4 transfers from NRPM sections 4. Because that section was written primarily to deal with free pool allocations, it is much more complicated than is really necessary for transfers. In practice, ARIN staff applies much more lenient needs assessment to section 8 IPv4 transfer requests than to free pool requests, as 24-month needs are much more difficult to assess to the same level of detail. This proposal seeks to dramatically simplify the needs assessment process for 8.3 transfers, while still allowing organizations with corner-case requirements to apply under existing policy if necessary. Policy statement: 8.1.x Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers IPv4 transfer recipients must demonstrate (and an officer of the requesting organization must attest) that they will use at least 50% of their aggregate IPv4 addresses (including the requested resources) on an operational network within 24 months. Organizations that do not meet the simplified criteria above may instead demonstrate the need for number resources using the criteria in section 4 of the NRPM. Comments: a. Timetable for implementation: Immediate b. Anything else ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
[arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments
Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1 Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments On 18 June 2015 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) recommended ARIN-2015-1 for adoption, making it a Recommended Draft Policy. ARIN-2015-1 is below and can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_1.html You are encouraged to discuss Draft Policy 2015-1 on the PPML prior to the ARIN Public Policy Consultation at ARIN 36 in Montreal in October 2015. Both the discussion on the list and at the meeting will be used by the ARIN Advisory Council to determine the community consensus for adopting this as policy. The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1 Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments Date: 23 June 2015 AC's assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy: ARIN-2015-1 enables fair and impartial number resource administration by providing a concrete threshold (13 active sites) under which end-user organizations who have a large number of potentially geographically dispersed sites, or sites with low subnet and/or user counts, can be reasonably assured of receiving IPv6 address space from ARIN. This proposal is technically sound, in that it retains reasonable thresholds on obtaining IPv6 assignments from ARIN in order to support the aggregation of Internet number resources in a hierarchical manner to the extent feasible. It has been well supported by the community on PPML and at the ARIN PPC at NANOG in San Francisco, where nearly everyone agreed that this was a step in the right direction. To the extent that some in the community desire even more relaxed IPv6 assignment policy, the AC encourages those community members to discuss on PPML and/or submit as additional policy proposals any further changes they would like to see. Problem Statement: Current policy for assignment to end users excludes a class of users whose costs to renumber would far exceed what current policy is designed to mitigate. Current measures designed to minimize the economic cost of renumbering per NRPM 6.5.8.1 (Initial Assignment Criteria) are: c. By having a network that makes active use of a minimum of 2000 IPv6 addresses within 12 months, or; d. By having a network that makes active use of a minimum of 200 /64 subnets within 12 months, or; These two measures fail to take into account end users who have a large number of potentially geographically dispersed sites, or sites with low subnet and/or user counts. The economic costs for this class of end user would likely far exceed the costs that 6.5.8.1 c. and d. are designed to mitigate. While an end user could possibly apply (and receive an assignment) under 6.5.8.1 e. (By providing a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable), it fails to provide a concrete threshold under which this class of end-user can be reasonably assured of receiving address space. Without having the reasonable assurance of IPv6 address number resource continuity that a direct assignment allows, many smaller enterprises are unlikely to adopt IPv6 (currently perceived as an already tenuous proposition for most users given current cost/benefit); or are likely to adopt technical measures (such as using ULA addressing + NAT66) that are widely held to be damaging to the IPv6 Internet. Policy Statement: Replace the contents of NRPM 6.5.8.1 with: 6.5.8.1. Initial Assignment Criteria Organizations may justify an initial assignment for addressing devices directly attached to their own network infrastructure, with an intent for the addresses to begin operational use within 12 months, by meeting one of the following criteria: a. Having a previously justified IPv4 end-user assignment from ARIN or one of its predecessor registries, or; b. Currently being IPv6 Multihomed or immediately becoming IPv6 Multihomed and using an assigned valid global AS number, or; c. By having a network that makes active use of a minimum of 2000 IPv6 addresses within 12 months, or; d. By having a network that makes active use of a minimum of 200 /64 subnets within 12 months, or; e. By having a contiguous network that has a minimum of 13 active sites within 12 months, or; f. By providing a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable. Examples of justifications for why addresses from an ISP or other LIR may be unsuitable include, but are not limited to: An organization that operates infrastructure critical to life safety or the functioning of society can justify the need for an assignment
[arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - June 2015
In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 18 June 2015. Having found the following Draft Policy to be fully developed and meeting ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy, the AC recommended it for adoption; it will be posted as Recommended Draft Policy for discussion: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments The AC accepted the following Proposals as Draft Policies (each will be posted for discussion): ARIN-prop-219 Out of region use ARIN-prop-220 Transfers and Multi-national Networks ARIN-prop-221 Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers The AC is continuing to work on: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients) Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in end-user IPv4 policy Draft Policy ARIN-2015-4: Modify 8.2 section to better reflect how ARIN handles reorganizations Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Fraud reporting question
Hello Adam, Thank you for submitting these questions about fraud reporting. We have found the fraud reporting system to be very helpful over the past few years. We receive many different types of fraud reports through this system. Some of them have helped ARIN begin investigations that have resulted in both the recovery of falsely registered resources and the denial of some IPv4 requests that might have otherwise been issued resources. From: Adam Thompson athom...@athompso.netmailto:athom...@athompso.net 1) when someone submits a fraud report to ARIN, how are they supposed to communicate additional information on that ticket? Nothing in the responses from ARIN provide a URL or email address for submitting further information. If the complainant submits further information through the fraud reporting form online, a brand new ticket gets created with no linkage to the original. 2) how long should someone expect to wait to hear back from a human? Even an acknowledgement (non-automated) would go a long way to addressing the feeling most people would have that their submission went into a black hole. Fraud reports receive an initial automated response from ARIN. The majority of the fraud reports we receive are out of scope. These often include someone attempting to sell services to ARIN or to lodge a complaint about the poor quality of service being delivered by their ISP. Not all fraud reports receive a response from a human at ARIN, for this reason. In the case of a legitimate fraud report, we respond to the reporter letting them know we are looking into the issue. Once this communication has been made, ARIN and the person reporting the fraud are engaged in a ticketed email exchange. We typically are able to respond within a few business days, however our response times have slowed in the past months due to an increased workload related to the depletion of the IPv4 resource pool. If you have submitted a report in the last fourteen days, you should hear back from us shortly. You are also welcome to contact us via our telephone help-desk for status information. 3) why can't I submit a fraud report if I'm logged in to ARIN online? Claiming it's about anonymity is questionable when any complainant has to provide contact info anyway! Tickets submitted in ARIN Online are visible to other points of contact associated with the same organization. We require users submit fraud reports outside of ARIN Online for that reason. Even so, users should still be able to submit information using the fraud reporting tool without having to log out of ARIN Online. We will take a closer look to make sure that is working. Thank you again. Richard Jimmerson CIO Acting Director of Registration Services American Registry for Internet Numbers ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use
Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5 Out of region use On 18 June 2015 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted ARIN-prop-219 Out of region use as a Draft Policy. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5 is below and can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_5.html You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft Policy 2015-5 on the Public Policy Mailing List. The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are: * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration * Technically Sound * Supported by the Community The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5 Out of region use Date: 23 June 2015 Problem statement: Current policy neither clearly forbids nor clearly permits out or region use of ARIN registered resources. This has created confusion and controversy within the ARIN community for some time. Earlier work on this issue has explored several options to restrict or otherwise limit out of region use. None of these options have gained consensus within the community. The next logical option is a proposal that clearly permits out of region use while addressing the key concerns expressed about unlimited openness to out of region use and enables ARIN staff to implement the policy efficiently. Policy statement: Create new Section X: ARIN registered resources may be used outside the ARIN service region. Out of region use of IPv4, IPv6, or ASNs are valid justification for additional number resources if the applicant is currently using at least the equivalent of a /22 of IPv4, /44 of IPv6, or 1 ASN within the ARIN service region, respectively. In addition, the applicant must have a real and substantial connection with the ARIN region, which the applicant shall be responsible for proving. A real and substantial connection shall be defined as carrying on business in the ARIN region in a meaningful manner, whether for or not for profit. The determination as to whether an entity is carrying on business in the ARIN region in a meaningful manner shall be made by ARIN. Simply being incorporated in the ARIN region shall not be sufficient, on its own, to prove that an entity is carrying on business in the ARIN region in a meaningful manner. Methods that entities may consider using, including cumulatively, to prove that they are carrying on business in the ARIN region in a meaningful manner include: • Demonstrating a physical presence in the ARIN region through a bricks and mortar location that is actually used for the purposes of conducting business in the ARIN region in a meaningful manner. That is to say, the location is not merely a registered office that serves no other business purpose. • Demonstrating that the entity has staff in the ARIN region. The greater the number of staff, the stronger this connecting factor is. • Demonstrating that the entity holds assets in the ARIN region. The greater the asset value, the stronger this connecting factor is. • Demonstrating that the entity provides services to or solicits sales from residents of the ARIN region. • Demonstrating that the entity holds annual meetings in the ARIN region. • Demonstrating that the entity raises investment capital from investors in the ARIN region. • Demonstrating that the entity has a registered office in the ARIN region, although this factor on its own shall not be sufficient. • Any other method that the entity considers appropriate. The services and facilities used to justify the need for ARIN resources that will be used out of region cannot also be used to justify resource requests from another RIR. When a request for resources from ARIN is justified by need located within another RIR's service region, the officer of the applicant must attest that the same services and facilities have not been used as the basis for a resource request in the other region(s). ARIN reserves the right to request a listing of all the applicant's number holdings in the region(s) of proposed use, but this should happen only when there are significant reasons to suspect duplicate requests. Comments: a) Timetable for implementation: Various iterations of this policy have been presented and debated by ARIN for well over a year now. Given the amount of time that has already been spent on developing a policy, ideally, this policy would be implemented as soon as possible. b) Explanation of draft policy: The draft policy addresses both the problem statement as well as the concerns raised at ARIN 35 by participants as well as ARIN
Re: [arin-ppml] Fraud reporting question
+1 Owen's remarks. There’s another possibility which seems entirely likely to me. Of 146 fraud reports, 2% cover legitimate fraud. Most fraud likely goes unreported. As noted by ARIN staff earlier in this conversation, the vast majority of fraud reports they receive are out of scope… General ISP complaints SPAM complaints etc. This is not surprising as probably about 1% of all internet users even know what an RIR is, let alone how to distinguish between RIR Fraud and other issues. -- Brian On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Jun 23, 2015, at 19:34 , Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Richard Jimmerson richa...@arin.net wrote: Hello Adam, Thank you for submitting these questions about fraud reporting. We have found the fraud reporting system to be very helpful over the past few years. We receive many different types of fraud reports through this system. Some of them have helped ARIN begin investigations that have resulted in both the recovery of falsely registered resources and the denial of some IPv4 requests that might have otherwise been issued resources. According to the fraud results page, ~2% (of 146) resulted in further investigation. That''s a problem. Either. There is no real fraud or, ARIN is powerless to deal with it. The last time ARIN updated the Results page appears to be September 2014 based on the last noted ticket number of ARIN-20140929-F1760. There’s another possibility which seems entirely likely to me. Of 146 fraud reports, 2% cover legitimate fraud. Most fraud likely goes unreported. As noted by ARIN staff earlier in this conversation, the vast majority of fraud reports they receive are out of scope… General ISP complaints SPAM complaints etc. This is not surprising as probably about 1% of all internet users even know what an RIR is, let alone how to distinguish between RIR Fraud and other issues. Some sort of additional resources like a FAQ on what might or might not be out of scope could help to reduce the amount of baseless submissions as well as additional questions on the form that if selected nack a report. If staff isn't going to keep the page updated why keep it at all? On this we agree… The form letter I suggested should contain a link to this FAQ, as should the fraud report filing page. Owen Best, -M ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Fraud reporting question
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Richard Jimmerson richa...@arin.net wrote: Hello Adam, Thank you for submitting these questions about fraud reporting. We have found the fraud reporting system to be very helpful over the past few years. We receive many different types of fraud reports through this system. Some of them have helped ARIN begin investigations that have resulted in both the recovery of falsely registered resources and the denial of some IPv4 requests that might have otherwise been issued resources. According to the fraud results page, ~2% (of 146) resulted in further investigation. That''s a problem. Either. There is no real fraud or, ARIN is powerless to deal with it. The last time ARIN updated the Results page appears to be September 2014 based on the last noted ticket number of ARIN-20140929-F1760. Some sort of additional resources like a FAQ on what might or might not be out of scope could help to reduce the amount of baseless submissions as well as additional questions on the form that if selected nack a report. If staff isn't going to keep the page updated why keep it at all? Best, -M ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments
On 6/23/2015 1:07 PM, ARIN wrote: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1 Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments I am of mixed opinion on this policy. I agree that it should be quite easy for an organization to receive their own IPv6 space. And I was fully supportive until I got to many smaller enterprises are unlikely to adopt IPv6 (currently perceived as an already tenuous proposition for most users given current cost/benefit). Since there's still major barriers to deploying IPv6, despite this being over a decade since it should have happened, the amount of popcorn I am able to consume as an observer over the next few years if smaller enterprises find even more reasons to not adopt v6 (such as the one this policy wishes to correct) is vastly increased. I like popcorn, and so I'm opposed on that basis alone. Matthew Kaufman matt...@eeph.com ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Fraud reporting question
On Jun 23, 2015, at 19:34 , Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Richard Jimmerson richa...@arin.net mailto:richa...@arin.net wrote: Hello Adam, Thank you for submitting these questions about fraud reporting. We have found the fraud reporting system to be very helpful over the past few years. We receive many different types of fraud reports through this system. Some of them have helped ARIN begin investigations that have resulted in both the recovery of falsely registered resources and the denial of some IPv4 requests that might have otherwise been issued resources. According to the fraud results page, ~2% (of 146) resulted in further investigation. That''s a problem. Either. There is no real fraud or, ARIN is powerless to deal with it. The last time ARIN updated the Results page appears to be September 2014 based on the last noted ticket number of ARIN-20140929-F1760. There’s another possibility which seems entirely likely to me. Of 146 fraud reports, 2% cover legitimate fraud. Most fraud likely goes unreported. As noted by ARIN staff earlier in this conversation, the vast majority of fraud reports they receive are out of scope… General ISP complaints SPAM complaints etc. This is not surprising as probably about 1% of all internet users even know what an RIR is, let alone how to distinguish between RIR Fraud and other issues. Some sort of additional resources like a FAQ on what might or might not be out of scope could help to reduce the amount of baseless submissions as well as additional questions on the form that if selected nack a report. If staff isn't going to keep the page updated why keep it at all? On this we agree… The form letter I suggested should contain a link to this FAQ, as should the fraud report filing page. Owen Best, -M ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks
On 6/23/2015 4:16 PM, William Herrin wrote: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Scott Leibrand scottleibr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:36 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:06 PM, ARIN i...@arin.net wrote: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6 Transfers and Multi-national Networks OPPOSED. Noted. Can you read over my comments below, and then note why you think it's a bad idea to ignore the geographic location where an organization is utilizing its ARIN-registered addresses when evaluating transfer requests? I'm hoping to hear the consequentialist argument behind your position, independent of the appeal to authority (of the PDP) that you gave below. Hi Scott, Sure. It grants large, multinational corporations unhindered access to IP addresses for worldwide use. As opposed to now, where large multinational corporation have unhindered access to IP addresses that they use worldwide? (Many of whom are using these addresses to allow small companies to deploy services all over the world, even) We could just ask large multinational corporations to spend a little more on lawyer to create more subsidiaries and/or just buy up the right to use address space without bothering to update the registry, if that would make you happier. Such addresses are denied to smaller organizations in the same localities who can't claim an ARIN-region presence. Such addresses are about to be denied to anyone who doesn't have cash to buy them (except perhaps, for a few more months, in Africa). Meanwhile, there's lots of addresses available on the transfer market in these other regions that they can access. What's the problem exactly? The addresses are also rendered less accessible to organizations solely within the ARIN region who can't support a purchase with profit from a region where addresses are in higher demand. It's a cross-subsidy (one source and consequence of monopoly power) for organizations many of whom are already close enough to being monopolies as makes no difference. All this says is that long before we ran out of addresses we should have stopped having them be regional. There's a whole lot of legitimate reasons for entities, small and large, to expect to be able to portably use their address space anywhere in the world... especially if they've paid a bunch of real cash for it, as will be happening. Bottom line: it's grossly unfair to all of us who aren't large multinational corporations. Everything is unfair to people who don't have the cash to buy address space inside or outside their region. Those who can afford it will do whatever other steps are needed (skipping registration, forming subsidiaries) because now, and in the future, addresses themselves will cost enough that such things are a tiny fraction of the transaction cost. Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks
I think I'd be ok with that... do we need language in one or the other that explains what happens if both pass? Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at On 6/23/2015 5:21 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: I agree with your reasoning, but as a conclusion, I support the broader-based 2015-5 as I believe it provides a more flexible solution to a wider swath of the ARIN community. Owen On Jun 23, 2015, at 17:19 , Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote: On 6/23/2015 1:06 PM, ARIN wrote: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6 Transfers and Multi-national Networks I support this policy. For whatever reason, an entity may choose to be utilizing its address space anywhere in the world. Where the addresses are being used at this instant should not have any bearing on whether or not they are utilized. Clearly if I have a /24 filled to 95% capacity with running VMs, and they're running on physical hardware in Virginia, that /24 is utilized. If I happen to choose later today to move them to a physical host in Luxembourg, the addresses didn't stop being utilized... they're just temporarily being used somewhere else in the world, and that's perfectly reasonable. Further, keeping restrictions like this will simply cause entities to work around the policy either by using subsidiaries or by not even bothering to record transfers. Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks
I believe the text is compatible as-is. If section 4 says out of region use is allowed, and then section 8 (where this one would go) also says geographic location doesn't matter, then ARIN will follow whichever of those they get to first, and we might just have slightly more lenient rules for transfers than free pool (waiting list) allocations. But if ARIN staff thinks there would be a conflict between the two if both are passed, they will flag that in the Staff and Legal assessment, and we can add any language needed to clarify. Alternately, the AC can decide to merge the two proposals or only recommend one of them for adoption if both look like they have support and only one is needed. -Scott On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote: I think I'd be ok with that... do we need language in one or the other that explains what happens if both pass? Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at On 6/23/2015 5:21 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: I agree with your reasoning, but as a conclusion, I support the broader-based 2015-5 as I believe it provides a more flexible solution to a wider swath of the ARIN community. Owen On Jun 23, 2015, at 17:19 , Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote: On 6/23/2015 1:06 PM, ARIN wrote: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6 Transfers and Multi-national Networks I support this policy. For whatever reason, an entity may choose to be utilizing its address space anywhere in the world. Where the addresses are being used at this instant should not have any bearing on whether or not they are utilized. Clearly if I have a /24 filled to 95% capacity with running VMs, and they're running on physical hardware in Virginia, that /24 is utilized. If I happen to choose later today to move them to a physical host in Luxembourg, the addresses didn't stop being utilized... they're just temporarily being used somewhere else in the world, and that's perfectly reasonable. Further, keeping restrictions like this will simply cause entities to work around the policy either by using subsidiaries or by not even bothering to record transfers. Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments
I'll point out that at my current employer, I cannot justify obtaining PI v6 space. So I've deployed ULA + NPT in order to guarantee uniqueness. I see IPv6 allocation making some of the same assumptions humans have made through time (e.g. 640k should be enough for anyone ), so I'm not sure I *should* be able to get PI space. NAT, NAT66, NPT, etc. are ubiquitous enough that anyone designing pathological protocols that rely on embedded IP addresses (e.g. FTP, SIP, et al.) should probably be taken out behind the shed and put out of their misery. Based on that, I disagree that ULA+NAT is harmful to the internet anymore. That ship has already sailed. (Irony: my phone autocorrected that to failed. How true.) Nonetheless, I don't oppose this policy. If we truly want to get rid of NAT and eliminate unreasonable renumbering costs , there can logically be no needs testing at all. Renumbering even a 10-person office would be an unreasonable expense to me. I don't feel strongly about this, but the individual points the policy considers *are* valid. Here, have another bucket of popcorn... -Adam On June 23, 2015 7:25:06 PM CDT, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote: On 6/23/2015 1:07 PM, ARIN wrote: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1 Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments I am of mixed opinion on this policy. I agree that it should be quite easy for an organization to receive their own IPv6 space. And I was fully supportive until I got to many smaller enterprises are unlikely to adopt IPv6 (currently perceived as an already tenuous proposition for most users given current cost/benefit). Since there's still major barriers to deploying IPv6, despite this being over a decade since it should have happened, the amount of popcorn I am able to consume as an observer over the next few years if smaller enterprises find even more reasons to not adopt v6 (such as the one this policy wishes to correct) is vastly increased. I like popcorn, and so I'm opposed on that basis alone. Matthew Kaufman matt...@eeph.com ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments
I presume that was in jest, but just like to confirm if you have a legitimate beef with this draft policy. Cheers, GTG -Original Message- From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Matthew Kaufman Sent: June-23-15 8:25 PM To: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments On 6/23/2015 1:07 PM, ARIN wrote: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1 Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments I am of mixed opinion on this policy. I agree that it should be quite easy for an organization to receive their own IPv6 space. And I was fully supportive until I got to many smaller enterprises are unlikely to adopt IPv6 (currently perceived as an already tenuous proposition for most users given current cost/benefit). Since there's still major barriers to deploying IPv6, despite this being over a decade since it should have happened, the amount of popcorn I am able to consume as an observer over the next few years if smaller enterprises find even more reasons to not adopt v6 (such as the one this policy wishes to correct) is vastly increased. I like popcorn, and so I'm opposed on that basis alone. Matthew Kaufman matt...@eeph.com ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers
Opposed. On 15-06-23 05:39 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: I am opposed to this proposal. It is yet another attempt to chip away at needs basis by those seeking to provide for unlimited and unrestricted transfers. The community has repeatedly indicated that the preservation of needs basis is important and virtually every proposal seeking to eliminate it has been rebuffed by the community. This proposal should, IMHO, be recognized for what it is… A clear effort to reduce the needs-basis requirements for transfers. Owen On Jun 23, 2015, at 17:31 , Scott Leibrand scottleibr...@gmail.com mailto:scottleibr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at mailto:matt...@matthew.at wrote: On 6/23/2015 1:06 PM, ARIN wrote: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7 Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers I support this policy, but would be even happier if we simply had a trigger that said when ARIN is out of IPv4 addresses, this simplified policy replaces all other tests for IPv4 transfers and the other sections are inactive until such time as ARIN has a new large free pool of IPv4 addresses (never) The main reason we didn't write a replacement for section 4 is this: Organizations that do not meet the simplified criteria above may instead demonstrate the need for number resources using the criteria in section 4 of the NRPM. There will likely be some sections of the community who feel that their particular need for IPv4 is better met under section 4 than under this simplified policy. Rather than trying to identify every such need and write in exceptions, I felt it would be better to first allow everyone using the transfer market to opt out of section 4 entirely, and then once we have some experience with which requests actually still end up using section 4, we will have some data on which parts of it we need to keep and which can be eliminated in a simplification cleanup proposal. -Scott ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. -- Catch the Magic of Linux... Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc. Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca LinuxMagic a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd. 604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company. ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Fraud reporting question
On 15-06-23 02:11 PM, Richard Jimmerson wrote: If you have submitted a report in the last fourteen days, you should hear back from us shortly. You are also welcome to contact us via our telephone help-desk for status information. 3) why can't I submit a fraud report if I'm logged in to ARIN online? Claiming it's about anonymity is questionable when any complainant has to provide contact info anyway! Tickets submitted in ARIN Online are visible to other points of contact associated with the same organization. We require users submit fraud reports outside of ARIN Online for that reason. Even so, users should still be able to submit information using the fraud reporting tool without having to log out of ARIN Online. We will take a closer look to make sure that is working. This brings up a good and interesting point. Should the door be opened to discussions regarding letting 'fraud' reports be open to the public, including ARIN's progress and handling of such reports? Having an open nature to such reports, will ensure that there is no suspicion of reports being ignored, swept under the rug, or not handled in accordance with ARIN's policies and guidelines. -- Catch the Magic of Linux... Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc. Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca LinuxMagic a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd. 604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company. ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:36 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:06 PM, ARIN i...@arin.net wrote: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6 Transfers and Multi-national Networks OPPOSED. Noted. Can you read over my comments below, and then note why you think it's a bad idea to ignore the geographic location where an organization is utilizing its ARIN-registered addresses when evaluating transfer requests? I'm hoping to hear the consequentialist argument behind your position, independent of the appeal to authority (of the PDP) that you gave below. Policy violates PDP section 3.2. The policy requires ARIN to consider addresses used outside the region but the PDP restricts policy scope to number resources managed within the ARIN region. I believe that is the whole point: while these number resources may be *used* outside the ARIN region, they are still *managed* within the ARIN region (by a multinational network with meaningful business that operates in the ARIN region, and is currently using IPv4 or IPv6 addresses in the ARIN region). So I don't see a conflict with the PDP here, just a disagreement with the principle of allowing use of ARIN-issued and -managed addresses outside the ARIN region. Policy violates PDP section 4.1. The policy requires ARIN to provide favorable treatment to longstanding customers. PDP 4.1 requires fair and impartial administration. Policy violates PDP section 4.1. The policy requires ARIN to facilitate number usage in locations worldwide but refuses to serve would-be registrants in those locations unless they also have a major presence in the ARIN region. PDP 4.1 requires fair and impartial administration. The PDP actually states that Internet number resource policy must provide for fair and impartial management of resources according to unambiguous guidelines and criteria. It doesn't mean the rules must be the same for everyone, but rather that there must be unambiguous rules, guidelines, and criteria, that are applied to everyone according to the text of the policies, not according to the whim of the resource analyst. We can wait and see what the ARIN Staff and Legal analysis says on the subject, but I'm pretty sure there isn't a conflict with the PDP here either. -Scott ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:06 PM, ARIN i...@arin.net wrote: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5 Out of region use OPPOSED. This draft calls for ARIN staff to make highly subjective value judgments which will, by their nature, vary from individual to individual and probably even from an individual's mood to mood. This would make a fair and impartial implementation of such a policy impossible. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/ ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Scott Leibrand scottleibr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:48 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: IPv4 transfer recipients must demonstrate (and an officer of the requesting organization must attest) that they will use at least 50% of their aggregate IPv4 addresses (including the requested resources) on an operational network within 24 months. I'm inclined to support changing the 8.3 recipient conditions consistent with this idea but it's not clear to me how this text would fit with what's already there. Currently, both 8.3 and 8.4 reference current ARIN policies for demonstrating need (The recipient must demonstrate the need for up to a 24-month supply of IP address resources under current ARIN policies). This new section 8.1.x would add a new type of policy that would allow organizations requesting simple 8.3 or 8.4 IPv4 transfers to bypass all the complexity and detailed utilization reporting requirements of NRPM section 4. Ah. In that case, I'm opposed to the policy as written. As a practical matter, the text does not sensibly fit where indicated. If placed there, it would make the surrounding policies harder, not easier, to understand. As a policy matter, I'm virulently opposed to using said criteria for out-region 8.4 transfers. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/ ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:16 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Scott Leibrand scottleibr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:36 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:06 PM, ARIN i...@arin.net wrote: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6 Transfers and Multi-national Networks OPPOSED. Noted. Can you read over my comments below, and then note why you think it's a bad idea to ignore the geographic location where an organization is utilizing its ARIN-registered addresses when evaluating transfer requests? I'm hoping to hear the consequentialist argument behind your position, independent of the appeal to authority (of the PDP) that you gave below. Hi Scott, Sure. It grants large, multinational corporations unhindered access to IP addresses for worldwide use. Such addresses are denied to smaller organizations in the same localities who can't claim an ARIN-region presence. The intention is that organizations without an ARIN-region presence (who have no particular need to be serviced by ARIN vs. their local RIR) would obtain addresses from the transfer market, and if those addresses come from the ARIN region, they would be transferred to the local RIR via an 8.4 transfer. Since that avenue is open to organization of all size in the APNIC and RIPE regions, and the AfriNIC region still has plenty of addresses in their free pool, that means this concern really only applies to the LACNIC region, which currently has a policy proposal under discussion to allow inbound inter-RIR transfers, correct? In other words, this concern would be addressed if LACNIC passes their inter-RIR transfer policy, and ARIN updates our transfer policy to allow non-reciprocal transfers to the LACNIC region? -Scott The addresses are also rendered less accessible to organizations solely within the ARIN region who can't support a purchase with profit from a region where addresses are in higher demand. It's a cross-subsidy (one source and consequence of monopoly power) for organizations many of whom are already close enough to being monopolies as makes no difference. Bottom line: it's grossly unfair to all of us who aren't large multinational corporations. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/ ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers
On 6/23/2015 1:06 PM, ARIN wrote: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7 Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers I support this policy, but would be even happier if we simply had a trigger that said when ARIN is out of IPv4 addresses, this simplified policy replaces all other tests for IPv4 transfers and the other sections are inactive until such time as ARIN has a new large free pool of IPv4 addresses (never) Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks
I agree with your reasoning, but as a conclusion, I support the broader-based 2015-5 as I believe it provides a more flexible solution to a wider swath of the ARIN community. Owen On Jun 23, 2015, at 17:19 , Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote: On 6/23/2015 1:06 PM, ARIN wrote: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6 Transfers and Multi-national Networks I support this policy. For whatever reason, an entity may choose to be utilizing its address space anywhere in the world. Where the addresses are being used at this instant should not have any bearing on whether or not they are utilized. Clearly if I have a /24 filled to 95% capacity with running VMs, and they're running on physical hardware in Virginia, that /24 is utilized. If I happen to choose later today to move them to a physical host in Luxembourg, the addresses didn't stop being utilized... they're just temporarily being used somewhere else in the world, and that's perfectly reasonable. Further, keeping restrictions like this will simply cause entities to work around the policy either by using subsidiaries or by not even bothering to record transfers. Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:06 PM, ARIN i...@arin.net wrote: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7 Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7 Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers Date: 23 June 2015 Problem statement: ARIN transfer policy currently inherits all its demonstrated need requirements for IPv4 transfers from NRPM sections 4. Because that section was written primarily to deal with free pool allocations, it is much more complicated than is really necessary for transfers. In practice, ARIN staff applies much more lenient needs assessment to section 8 IPv4 transfer requests than to free pool requests, as 24-month needs are much more difficult to assess to the same level of detail. This proposal seeks to dramatically simplify the needs assessment process for 8.3 transfers, while still allowing organizations with corner-case requirements to apply under existing policy if necessary. Policy statement: 8.1.x Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers Was this intended to be 8.3.x? It doesn't make sense to me in the transfer principles section (8.1). IPv4 transfer recipients must demonstrate (and an officer of the requesting organization must attest) that they will use at least 50% of their aggregate IPv4 addresses (including the requested resources) on an operational network within 24 months. I'm inclined to support changing the 8.3 recipient conditions consistent with this idea but it's not clear to me how this text would fit with what's already there. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/ ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks
On 6/23/2015 3:36 PM, William Herrin wrote: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:06 PM, ARIN i...@arin.net wrote: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6 Transfers and Multi-national Networks OPPOSED. Policy violates PDP section 3.2. The policy requires ARIN to consider addresses used outside the region but the PDP restricts policy scope to number resources managed within the ARIN region. Perhaps we need a change to that. Policy violates PDP section 4.1. The policy requires ARIN to provide favorable treatment to longstanding customers. PDP 4.1 requires fair and impartial administration. I can't remember the last time we had such... it would be a breath of fresh air though, wouldn't it? Policy violates PDP section 4.1. The policy requires ARIN to facilitate number usage in locations worldwide but refuses to serve would-be registrants in those locations unless they also have a major presence in the ARIN region. PDP 4.1 requires fair and impartial administration. Hm. Good point there. All RIRs should be facilitating number usage in locations worldwide... and it seemed reasonable to require a local presence, but maybe you're right that even that shouldn't be required. Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks
On 6/23/2015 3:55 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:36 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us mailto:b...@herrin.us wrote: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:06 PM, ARIN i...@arin.net mailto:i...@arin.net wrote: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6 Transfers and Multi-national Networks OPPOSED. Noted. Can you read over my comments below, and then note why you think it's a bad idea to ignore the geographic location where an organization is utilizing its ARIN-registered addresses when evaluating transfer requests? I'm hoping to hear the consequentialist argument behind your position, independent of the appeal to authority (of the PDP) that you gave below. Policy violates PDP section 3.2. The policy requires ARIN to consider addresses used outside the region but the PDP restricts policy scope to number resources managed within the ARIN region. I believe that is the whole point: while these number resources may be *used* outside the ARIN region, they are still *managed* within the ARIN region (by a multinational network with meaningful business that operates in the ARIN region, and is currently using IPv4 or IPv6 addresses in the ARIN region). So I don't see a conflict with the PDP here, just a disagreement with the principle of allowing use of ARIN-issued and -managed addresses outside the ARIN region. Makes sense to me. My management consoles rarely run in the same region where my VMs do. Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:06 PM, ARIN i...@arin.net wrote: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6 Transfers and Multi-national Networks OPPOSED. Policy violates PDP section 3.2. The policy requires ARIN to consider addresses used outside the region but the PDP restricts policy scope to number resources managed within the ARIN region. Policy violates PDP section 4.1. The policy requires ARIN to provide favorable treatment to longstanding customers. PDP 4.1 requires fair and impartial administration. Policy violates PDP section 4.1. The policy requires ARIN to facilitate number usage in locations worldwide but refuses to serve would-be registrants in those locations unless they also have a major presence in the ARIN region. PDP 4.1 requires fair and impartial administration. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/ ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Scott Leibrand scottleibr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:36 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:06 PM, ARIN i...@arin.net wrote: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6 Transfers and Multi-national Networks OPPOSED. Noted. Can you read over my comments below, and then note why you think it's a bad idea to ignore the geographic location where an organization is utilizing its ARIN-registered addresses when evaluating transfer requests? I'm hoping to hear the consequentialist argument behind your position, independent of the appeal to authority (of the PDP) that you gave below. Hi Scott, Sure. It grants large, multinational corporations unhindered access to IP addresses for worldwide use. Such addresses are denied to smaller organizations in the same localities who can't claim an ARIN-region presence. The addresses are also rendered less accessible to organizations solely within the ARIN region who can't support a purchase with profit from a region where addresses are in higher demand. It's a cross-subsidy (one source and consequence of monopoly power) for organizations many of whom are already close enough to being monopolies as makes no difference. Bottom line: it's grossly unfair to all of us who aren't large multinational corporations. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/ ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Fraud reporting question
On Jun 23, 2015, at 14:11 , Richard Jimmerson richa...@arin.net wrote: Hello Adam, Thank you for submitting these questions about fraud reporting. We have found the fraud reporting system to be very helpful over the past few years. We receive many different types of fraud reports through this system. Some of them have helped ARIN begin investigations that have resulted in both the recovery of falsely registered resources and the denial of some IPv4 requests that might have otherwise been issued resources. From: Adam Thompson athom...@athompso.net mailto:athom...@athompso.net 1) when someone submits a fraud report to ARIN, how are they supposed to communicate additional information on that ticket? Nothing in the responses from ARIN provide a URL or email address for submitting further information. If the complainant submits further information through the fraud reporting form online, a brand new ticket gets created with no linkage to the original. 2) how long should someone expect to wait to hear back from a human? Even an acknowledgement (non-automated) would go a long way to addressing the feeling most people would have that their submission went into a black hole. Fraud reports receive an initial automated response from ARIN. The majority of the fraud reports we receive are out of scope. These often include someone attempting to sell services to ARIN or to lodge a complaint about the poor quality of service being delivered by their ISP. Not all fraud reports receive a response from a human at ARIN, for this reason. I suggest that it would not be hard to develop an out-of-scope form letter that could be sent to the submitters of such reports. This has multiple advantages: 1. It will potentially educate such submitters and reduce the number of these they submit in the future. 2. It shows that ARIN has seriously reviewed their submission, even if they aren’t able to do anything about it. I will note that if this conversation goes much further, it may be appropriate to take it to one of the mailing lists for operational discussions and/or technical discussions about ARIN operations. Owen ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:22 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Scott Leibrand scottleibr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:48 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: IPv4 transfer recipients must demonstrate (and an officer of the requesting organization must attest) that they will use at least 50% of their aggregate IPv4 addresses (including the requested resources) on an operational network within 24 months. I'm inclined to support changing the 8.3 recipient conditions consistent with this idea but it's not clear to me how this text would fit with what's already there. Currently, both 8.3 and 8.4 reference current ARIN policies for demonstrating need (The recipient must demonstrate the need for up to a 24-month supply of IP address resources under current ARIN policies). This new section 8.1.x would add a new type of policy that would allow organizations requesting simple 8.3 or 8.4 IPv4 transfers to bypass all the complexity and detailed utilization reporting requirements of NRPM section 4. Ah. In that case, I'm opposed to the policy as written. As a practical matter, the text does not sensibly fit where indicated. If placed there, it would make the surrounding policies harder, not easier, to understand. Do you have any suggestions for improving clarity? As a policy matter, I'm virulently opposed to using said criteria for out-region 8.4 transfers. This would not apply to 8.4 transfers *out of* the ARIN regions, just 8.4 transfers *into* the ARIN region. ARIN does not (and would not) enforce needs assessment on 8.4 transfers to organizations in other regions: that is up to the recipient's RIR. -Scott ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks
On 6/23/2015 1:06 PM, ARIN wrote: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6 Transfers and Multi-national Networks I support this policy. For whatever reason, an entity may choose to be utilizing its address space anywhere in the world. Where the addresses are being used at this instant should not have any bearing on whether or not they are utilized. Clearly if I have a /24 filled to 95% capacity with running VMs, and they're running on physical hardware in Virginia, that /24 is utilized. If I happen to choose later today to move them to a physical host in Luxembourg, the addresses didn't stop being utilized... they're just temporarily being used somewhere else in the world, and that's perfectly reasonable. Further, keeping restrictions like this will simply cause entities to work around the policy either by using subsidiaries or by not even bothering to record transfers. Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote: On 6/23/2015 1:06 PM, ARIN wrote: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7 Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers I support this policy, but would be even happier if we simply had a trigger that said when ARIN is out of IPv4 addresses, this simplified policy replaces all other tests for IPv4 transfers and the other sections are inactive until such time as ARIN has a new large free pool of IPv4 addresses (never) The main reason we didn't write a replacement for section 4 is this: Organizations that do not meet the simplified criteria above may instead demonstrate the need for number resources using the criteria in section 4 of the NRPM. There will likely be some sections of the community who feel that their particular need for IPv4 is better met under section 4 than under this simplified policy. Rather than trying to identify every such need and write in exceptions, I felt it would be better to first allow everyone using the transfer market to opt out of section 4 entirely, and then once we have some experience with which requests actually still end up using section 4, we will have some data on which parts of it we need to keep and which can be eliminated in a simplification cleanup proposal. -Scott ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
