Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-6: Revising Section 4.4 C/I
Reserved Pool Size (Christopher Morrow)
2. Re: ASN Transfer Completed (David Farmer)
3. Inter-RIR Transfer Completed (Was: Re: ASN Transfer
Completed) (David Farmer)
4. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for Third Party
Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable (Gary Buhrmaster)
5. Re: Inter-RIR Transfer Completed (Was: Re: ASN Transfer
Completed) (Michael Burns)
6. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for Third Party
Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable (William Herrin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 01:02:50 -0400
From: Christopher Morrow <[email protected]>
To: David Farmer <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-6: Revising Section
4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size
Message-ID:
<cal9jlazimotrh+xvbag0ngx0q8yf39zj6srgkdjk9hjek+z...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Christopher Morrow
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Looking at the rootzone (http://www.internic.net/zones/root.zone):
>>> Zone count: 272
>>> NSHost count: 1182
>>> NSAddr count: 1620
>>>
>>> of the addresses there I see some re-use of the actual /32 || /128, 59
>>> occurances of the same /32 or /128.
>>> 488 v6 addresses
>>> 274 unique /48s in that set
>>>
>>> 1132 v4 addresses
>>> 713 unique /24s
>>
>>
>> When I looked at this anecdotally, I though I saw way more of them with
>> multiple servers per /24. So thanks for making the counts, given this then
>> we should be thinking about a bigger block for sure.
>>
>
> I was on the other end anecdotally... so I was happy to see some
> numbers. they code I put together to get this I'll pop up on github or
> something, in case people want to see for themselves or futz with this
> over time.
<https://github.com/morrowc/root_zone>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 05:49:58 -0500
From: David Farmer <[email protected]>
To: John Curran <[email protected]>
Cc: ARIN PPML <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ASN Transfer Completed
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 10/18/12 20:44 , John Curran wrote:
> On Oct 4, 2012, at 11:59 AM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote:
...
>> A. The registration date is listed as 2001-05-18; If the ASN were recently
>> transferred wouldn't it have a new registration date of when the transfer
>> was completed? This seems to be the case when an IPv4 prefix is transferred.
>
> This has been resolved; specified transfers per NRPM 8.3 do
> result in a new registration date, whether IPv4 block or ASN.
>
>> B. One of the POCs for what I presume is the receiving organization seems to
>> not have been validated; I thought organizations with invalid POCs were
>> prevented from completing various transaction with ARIN without validating
>> all their POCs? Why isn't receiving a transfer one of these transaction?
>
> This was an oversight and is in the process of being corrected.
Thanks for the update and the fixes.
David.
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:17:01 -0500
From: David Farmer <[email protected]>
To: Mike Burns <[email protected]>
Cc: John Curran <[email protected]>, ARIN PPML <[email protected]>
Subject: [arin-ppml] Inter-RIR Transfer Completed (Was: Re: ASN
Transfer Completed)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 10/18/12 21:24 , Mike Burns wrote:
>
>>> Also, it occurs to me that the page in question is specific to
>>> Section 8.3 transfers, will Section 8.4 transfers be included on this
>>> page or a separate similar page created when they start occurring?
>>> In the case of 8.4 transfers it might be useful to include the other
>>> RIR that is either the source or recipient of the inter-RIR transfer
>>> as well as the prefix involved in the transfer.
>
> They've started.
> http://www.apnic.net/publications/news/2012/apnic-processes-first-inter-rir-ipv4-transfer-from-arin
Mike,
Thanks for the pointer. And, that's another milestone ticking by.
I'm a little surprised it took this long. I'm also a little surprised
that the first one is only a /24, it seems a little anticlimactic.
So digging around a little; From the following; It was 205.166.177.0/24
that was transferred.
http://ftp.apnic.net/transfers/apnic
Looking that up in ARIN Whois, it says it was an "Early Registrations,
Transferred to APNIC".
http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-205-166-177-0-1/pft
John,
If possible I would really prefer that 8.4 transfers were differentiated
from EXRs in Whois. I recognize from the registry process point of view
they are virtually identical. However, they are occurring for very
different reasons and I think that needs differentiation in Whois.
I think something as simple as removing "Early Registrations" and
leaving "Transferred to APNIC" in the Net Type, and maybe changing ERX
to XFR in the Name, something like that would be sufficient differentiation.
On 10/18/12 20:44 , John Curran wrote:
> Yes, we intend to publish similar statistics regarding 8.4 inter-RIR
> transfers.
Great, I was suggesting that the other RIR involved be documented with
the transferred prefix. However, as long as Whois glue similar to the
above is included by the RIR that is the source of the transferred block
then I'm not sure additional documentation of the RIR involved is really
necessary, the transferred prefix itself should be sufficient.
Thanks.
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 05:39:21 -0700
From: Gary Buhrmaster <[email protected]>
To: William Herrin <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for
Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
Message-ID:
<CAMfXtQzo9yoUm8u-DJDkDxLe0ONYVY=unvjriqpe4lquf_0...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 2:56 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote:
....
> Then put an expire date on it so that the various parties in this
> stinker know up front they're on borrowed time. The rest of us expect
> the incumbent cable companies to fix their tech so that it behaves
> reasonably.
I had written a draft on this topic and suggested such a "sunset date",
but I cannot see it in the archives, so I must have never sent it. My
bad.
Would it make the policy more acceptable for those that really
believe that the CRTC can (and should, and will) change the regs
in such ways to ensure the incumbents not "game the system"
(the CRTC regs and ARIN), and to still enable competition now,
to add in a sunset date on this policy?. Given the time it takes
for (most) Government agencies to enact new regs, I suspect
that date will need to be a number of years. Unfortunately, I
suspect such kicking of the can down the road is likely to
generate a new proposal to extend the sunset date (and given
how long some ARIN policies take to percolate, might also have
to be proposed on the date this proposal was implemented :-)
Gary
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:36:25 -0400
From: "Michael Burns" <[email protected]>
To: "David Farmer" <[email protected]>
Cc: ARIN PPML <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Inter-RIR Transfer Completed (Was: Re: ASN
Transfer Completed)
Message-ID: <6F816DB2905744AE8EC2613389FC030F@MPC>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response
>David wrote:
>I'm a little surprised it took this long. I'm also a little surprised that
>the first one is only a /24, it seems a little anticlimactic.
Hi David,
We chose this deal to be the first because its size made the transaction
less risky, and because this /24 was the first block on the APNIC
pre-approval list.
Larger deals are in the pipeline.
I think many in the community will be happy to note that this was originally
legacy space not under RSA, and now it is covered under RSA (with APNIC).
We acted as both ARIN and APNIC facilitators and actually the process was
not onerous.
After the deal was done I asked ARIN staff about the Early Registration
terminology on the Whois record and was told it was temporary.
Regards,
Mike Burns
IPTrading
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:33:44 -0400
From: William Herrin <[email protected]>
To: Gary Buhrmaster <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for
Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
Message-ID:
<cap-gugugs-cg3qzm4jk_c_zrzu7dwwc3pixn6aayub01ach...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Gary Buhrmaster
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Would it make the policy more acceptable for those that really
> believe that the CRTC can (and should, and will) change the regs
> in such ways to ensure the incumbents not "game the system"
> (the CRTC regs and ARIN), and to still enable competition now,
> to add in a sunset date on this policy?
It wouldn't make it acceptable but it might move it out of the
"outrageously offensive" category.
> Given the time it takes
> for (most) Government agencies to enact new regs, I suspect
> that date will need to be a number of years.
Respectfully, I don't think that's the appropriate standard. The
incumbents confessed that this is a technology matter, not a
regulatory one. Their software allegedly suffers an architectural
fault that compels massively wasteful use of IP addresses when paired
with small ISPs (TPIAs) as customers.
We should identify a period of time which it would reasonably take for
the incumbent cable providers to requisition and deploy revised
software. Then we should cut it in half and give the BoT the option to
extend it to the full term if they determine that the incumbents are
acting in good faith to redress the problem.
Beyond that, if the incumbent cable providers wish to thwart the
intentions of the CRTC, that is a matter properly addressed between
them. It isn't ARIN's job to create competition in the Canadian cable
market. Any role ARIN plays in this situation should be limited to
providing a temporary bridge for what has been alleged to be an
accidental misimplementation of technology. And doing what we're
tasked to do: assure efficient utilization of the increasingly scarce
IPv4 resource.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected]
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 88, Issue 18
*****************************************
