FCC: 2019 CSRIC Working Groups Announced - Volunteers?

[Sean Donelan]

The 2019 FCC Communications Security Reliability and Interoperability 
Council (CSRIC) has announced their new working groups for the new cycle.


CSRIC is seeking volunteers to serve on various working groups.
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-19-689A1.pdf


Working Group 1: Alert Originator Standard Operating Procedures
  Chair: Craig Fugate, America’s Public Television Stations

Working Group 2: Managing Security Risk in the Transition to 5G
  Chair: Lee Thibaudeau, Nsight.

Working Group 3: Managing Security Risk in Emerging 5G Implementations
  Chair: Farrokh Khatibi, Qualcomm

Working Group 4: 911 Security Vulnerabilities During the IP Transition
  Chair: Mary A. Boyd, West Safety Services

Working Group 5: Improving Broadcast Resiliency
  Chair: Pat Roberts, Florida Association of Broadcasters

Working Group 6: SIP Security Vulnerabilities
  Chair: Danny McPherson, Verisign

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 lis

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 ARIN

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, 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, 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 AMPRNET

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/
>

Contact for Crown Media in California

[Mike M]

Hi,

Looking for a contact number for Crown Media in Studio City, CA. Need
access for a technician into that location.

Thanks
Mike Mackley
Crown Castle Fiber

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: AS3549 NOC contacts? Another BGP hijack

[Delacruz, Anthony B]

Our info is up to date on the whois with ARIN where the issuance is from 
https://whois.arin.net/rest/asn/AS3549/pft?s=3549

Preferred is ipad...@centurylink.com

From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Bolitho
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 4:33 PM
To: Dmitry A.Deineka
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: AS3549 NOC contacts? Another BGP hijack

NOC is 877-453-8353. That will get you the legacy Global Crossing (Level 3) 
teams.

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019, 2:12 PM Dmitry A.Deineka 
mailto:dmi...@deineka.net>> wrote:
Greetings,

Unfortunately, n...@gblx.net is not accepting emails 
anymore. Someone from AS3549 announced one of our network (more specific route) 
46.28.67.0/24.

It's not major impact but it's like that at least RIPE whois  has outdated 
contact information about responsive persons.

Can someone kindly share contact email of AS3549 (Centurylink?) NOC or other 
direct contacts?

Regards,
  Dmitry

--
  Dmitry A.Deineka
  ITLDC
This communication is the property of CenturyLink and may contain confidential 
or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly 
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in 
error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all 
copies of the communication and any attachments.

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