Hi Keith,
Thanks for the reply.
My understanding from the community network presentations given to the
ARIN community was that the 50 assignments / 100 assignments thresholds
were too high a bar to clear. I believe they said that commonly,
community networks are often considerably smaller,
I dug through the archives and wow, this policy (2008-3) had a long
history. It took 21 months from start to finish, was revised 4 times,
and was discussed in 23 separate ARIN AC meetings.
tldr: existing v6 policy in 2008-2009 could not be met by operators of
community networks, due to both
I wrote:
2) In the first Public Policy Meeting this was presented, the topic of
"cannot meet existing policy" was mostly centered around the criterion that
existed of "must announce a single aggregte" into the DFZ. The presenter
(Joshua King) indicated this was not possible for all community
Mike,
For clarity, your last question - the final paragraph - what smooth
section is that? Existing NRPM 8.5, or 2016-3 without the anti-abuse
clause?
David
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017, Mike Burns wrote:
Hi David,
I appreciate you trying to make me understand.
So are you assuming in your
I thought of a possible problem with the anti-abuse language -- all
versions of it. Let me talk it out.
An organization has a /19.
It has growing products, and wants another /19 for its 1 or 2 year need.
It wants to avail itself of the new language.
It is able to buy a /20 from Buyer A, and
What I dislike about the proposed addition of:
"- at least 50% utilization of each allocation and assignment"
... is it gives ARIN staff no room to take into account individual
topology.
I may run a network at 95% utilization across all IP addresses. But I may
also have a pool of addresses
an organization with larger holdings (ie /12) to get
a /16 every 6 months.
5) The policy would not limit other transfers in section 8.5.
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of David R
Huberman
Sent: Friday, February 3
Last week, ARIN staff sent to this list a copy of their response to
AFRINIC on inter-RIR transfer policy compatability.
The AFRINIC community is considering a one-way transfer policy as a
bootstrap for the few years until they reach IPv4 runout, at which point
it would aim to become
Hello,
In April, Jason Schiller and Scott Leibrand proposed a policy to allow
organizations to double their IPv4 address holdings via an 8.3 or 8.4
transfer without needs justification being performed up to certain size.
The draft policy text has been updated to define that "certain size" as
Hello,
In April, Jason Schiller and Scott Leibrand proposed a policy to allow
organizations to double their IPv4 address holdings via an 8.3 or 8.4
transfer without needs justification being performed up to certain size. The
draft policy text has been updated to define that "certain size" as a
On Mon, 7 Nov 2016, David Farmer wrote:
Personally, I'd like to remove that clause all together, I do not see
where it is reasonable to re-justify your resources just because of a
business reorganization. It should be sufficient to submit proper legal
documentation and demonstrate that the
As I read the last paragraph in NRPM section 8.2, in order for the /16
to be recorded under the new subsidiary's name, the subsidiary would
have to sign an RSA, renumber the otherwise unchanging network
infrastructure to meet ARIN's current efficiency standards and return
or sell the excess IP
It's a public policy document. In the absence of language to the
contrary, the MUST is implied. And if it's not a MUST then it's
operational guidance that doesn't belong in a POLICY document at all.
Probably, yes. Nevertheless, the MUST is not there and is not implied. And
I fully agree on
"ARIN will proceed with processing transfer requests even if the
number resources of the combined organizations EXCEED WHAT CAN BE
JUSTIFIED UNDER CURRENT ARIN POLICY. IN THAT EVENT, ARIN will work
with the resource holder(s) to transfer the extra number resources to
other organization(s) or
The language was introduced in draft policy 2010-6 whose rationale stated:
"This policy also should dramatically increase the completion rate for
transfer requests, as the evaluation of whether space is efficiently
utilized after the transfer can occur in parallel, completely
independently of
Hello,
1) As far as I can tell from the archives, the last time the ARIN public
policy community formally reviewed the POC Validation policy was in 2008.
2) In the intervening 8 years, staff have reported to the community at
numerous junctures that the workload associated with POC validation
Hello Joe,
Thanks for the reply. A reminder that I'm *asking* a genuine question.
Now, I wrote:
Whois reassignments are not the proper place for the information LE
wants, in my opinion, and has almost no value to NOCs.
Joe replied:
I find this assertion at odds with both my experience
Can you define voluntary?
Is the voluntary choice to record a reassignment
up to the USP?
Or does the choice belong to the end-user?
I think that's a business decision the two parties make together. I think
an ISP can choose to SWIP whatever it wants, and should do so with the
consent of
Hello,
Albert wrote:
Based on comments so far, most agree that a /48 should be SWIP'ed since
it is routable on the internet, and since so far the majority seems to
think that /56 is small enough to not require SWIP, this leaves 7
choices of /49 to /55 to set the limit for SWIP in the Draft.
Albert,
First, I wanted to say that both as a member of the community (as a
network operator) and as an AC member, I was exceedingly happy when you
proposed this draft policy. I don't agree with everything you have
written, but I agree with a lot of it, and I think the draft policy
language
ARIN-based network operators who are responsible for multi-continent IP
networks need to be able to move ARIN-registered numbers from ARIN to
LACNIC and AFRINIC for our datacenters in those regions. This need is to
allow us to achieve legal compliance and network engineering goals.
This
Yes, so tell AfriNIC to stop being political and adopt an open policy
and it will be able to get addresses transferred in.
We have been trying for years. I presented a Inter-RIR transfer policy
three times at LACNIC, in 2014 and 2015. Mike Burns in this thread
presented an Inter-RIR
Since AFRINIC still has a general free pool, why is not getting
addresses directly from that RIR for use in that region not an option?
AFRINIC is in its last /8. By the time any ARIN policy makes it to
implementation, your fact will be less true or possibly not true at all.
Trying to plan
Parts of Africa choose to starve rather than accept the import of GMO
food products from the U.S. This is not the US's problem, nor should it
be. I believe the correct proverb is, "beggars can't be choosers."
Bill, I framed the root motivation of the draft policy as:
"ARIN-based network
David and PPML,
David Farmer asked:
Do you support or oppose the policy as written?
I oppose the policy as written.
David Farmer also asked:
Do you think the inconsistency described in the Problem Statement
should be corrected?
If yes, should it be corrected by revising by section 8.5.4
yes, there are real-world issues for 32-bit ASN users today related to
communities. If I'd have to do a greenfield deployment of a new transit
network today, using a 16-bit ASN would be a blocking requirement due to
BGP communities. I imagine that for a number of years to come 16-bit
ASNs will
Mike Burns wrote:
I am debating a proposal to allow inter-regional ASN transfers.
Short ASNs have value.
Indeed. Though RFC 8092 solves the overarching problem (BGP community
strings not supporting integers above 65536), it will take a long time
(years) for widespread adoption of
Hello,
3. Is there any potential deleterious impact should this language be
adopted into the NRPM?
I speak neither for or against this draft policy.
I would like to note that the delegation of ip6.arpa zones are currently
cleanly delineated. In the simple and current example, each RIR is
Hello Keith,
You wrote:
If you want to better understand the history of how ARIN and the other
Regional Internet Registries were created, there is a bit of information
at https://icannwiki.org/American_Registry_for_Internet_Numbers. There
should be more RIR history around, but I???m not sure
Hello,
Adam Thompson wrote:
My suggested direction to the AC and/or the board would therefore be:
Find something ARIN can do to help combat the problem (more
effectively).
This post is in reaction to "more effectively".
I'd like to please remind the community of the efforts ARIN and the
30 matches
Mail list logo
