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. IGF session on IP addresses (Milton L Mueller)
2. Re: IGF session on IP addresses (Owen DeLong)
3. Re: POC privacy (Steven Noble)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 21:29:30 +0000
From: Milton L Mueller <[email protected]>
To: "ARIN PPML ([email protected])" <[email protected]>
Subject: [arin-ppml] IGF session on IP addresses
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On the afternoon of the first day of the Internet Governance Forum, there will
be a workshop on "What is the best response to IPv4 scarcity? Exploring a
global transfer market for IPv4 addresses." It will be moderated by myself and
Geoff Huston, Chief Scientist at APNIC. There will also be a main session
discussion of the topic the next day.
The workshop will take a unique format. It will be organized not as a series of
panelists speaking _at_ an audience, but as a structured, multi-stakeholder
deliberation over policy alternatives among peers. It will test the extent to
which the various stakeholders interested in that issue can come to agreement
on a set of five basic policy issues affecting IPv4 number resources. The five
policy issues we will discuss are:
the role of needs assessment in market trades;
the status of legacy number block holders;
the accuracy of post-transaction records;
aggregation policies
market power
For each of these issues two or three opposing positions are set out, and the
workshop will attempt to document who takes which position, why, and whether
the group can come to rough consensus on one position or some new compromise
position formulated on the spot.
The panel is scheduled for 14:30 - 16:00 on 6 November, the first day of the
IGF, in Conference Room 9. Although the actual remote participation link for
this session has not yet been created by the IGF Secretariat, this page
provides general information and guidance regarding how the IGF will facilitate
remote participation. Baku's time zone is 9 hours ahead of US Eastern time, and
3 hours ahead of Continental European time.
Milton L. Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
Internet Governance Project
http://blog.internetgovernance.org
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 18:56:12 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>
To: Milton L Mueller <[email protected]>
Cc: "ARIN PPML \([email protected]\)" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IGF session on IP addresses
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Oct 28, 2012, at 14:29 , Milton L Mueller <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On the afternoon of the first day of the Internet Governance Forum, there
> will be a workshop on "What is the best response to IPv4 scarcity? Exploring
> a global transfer market for IPv4 addresses." It will be moderated by myself
> and Geoff Huston, Chief Scientist at APNIC. There will also be a main session
> discussion of the topic the next day.
>
Thanks for posting this.
I will, unfortunately, be unable to attend. However, I will provide you with my
position on these issues i below in the hopes that those positions can be
represented in the room in spite of my inability to attend this particular
forum.
I do think that the title of the workshop includes an inherent assumption that
skews the validity of the workshop overall. The question "What is the best
response to IPv4 scarcity?" should not automatically be answered with anything
including the word "transfer". Indeed, the BEST response to IPv4 scarcity is
the deployment of IPv6 such that IPv4 scarcity becomes moot. All other
responses are suboptimal mechanisms designed to cope with our failure to fully
deploy IPv6 in a timely manner.
For purposes of classifying my positions, they come from my perspectives as:
1. An individual user of the internet.
2. A legacy resource holder
3. An IPv6 resource holder
4. Operations staff at various ISPs over the years
5. Director of Professional Services at Hurricane Electric
6. An elected community leader for Number Resource Policy
7. An active participant in several RIRs Policy Development Fora
8. Author of many current ARIN policies.
For convenience, I will refer to context 1 as "Individual" and context 2 as
"corporate".
> The workshop will take a unique format. It will be organized not as a series
> of panelists speaking _at_ an audience, but as a structured,
> multi-stakeholder deliberation over policy alternatives among peers. It will
> test the extent to which the various stakeholders interested in that issue
> can come to agreement on a set of five basic policy issues affecting IPv4
> number resources. The five policy issues we will discuss are:
>
> the role of needs assessment in market trades;
In both contexts, my opinion is that needs assessment remains vital in market
trades. Absent needs assessment, the motivations and incentives for IPv4
transfers become completely decoupled from the policy goals of said transfers.
The ideal goal of IPv4 transfers is to encourage efficient utilization of the
IPv4 address space, where efficient is defined as maximizing the number of
hosts and purposes for which numbers can be made available. Please disregard
any economist-specific definitions of the term efficient, especially as they
use that term related to markets as such definition is utterly and completely
unrelated to efficient address utilization as I intend the term above.
If you remove the needs assessment from market trades, you allow incentives for
hoarding, speculation, and anti-competitive acquisition to become significant
factors in the trading of IP addresses and essentially remove any ability of
the RIRs or anyone else to prevent such practices. This will not only lead to
inefficient IPv4 address utilization, but it will unnecessarily increase costs
for those that need addresses and allow address scarcity to serve as a barrier
to competition to an even greater extent than it already does.
> the status of legacy number block holders;
The following opinion is identical in both contexts:
First, I would like to clarify some terms. There are no such things as legacy
blocks. There are only legacy registrations. A legacy registration is a
registration issued by one of the predecessor registries prior to the creation
of an RIR serving the region in question. In the case of Europe, this would be
registrations issued prior to RIPE-NCC's inception. In Asia, it would be
registrations issued prior to the formation of APNIC. In the rest of the world,
it is registrations prior to the 1997 inception of ARIN. (The current LACNIC
and AfriNIC regions were served by RIPE, APNIC, and ARIN prior to the formation
of LACNIC and AfriNIC). In limited cases, legacy registration status may
survive a transfer.
Legacy registrations are distinct from conventional registrations only in the
following ways:
1. They predate the current RIR system.
2. They are, in many cases, exempt from paying RIR fees, at least under current
practices.
3. They are eligible to sign the LRSA in the case of legacy registrations in
the ARIN region.
4. They do not have an explicit contract for registration services.
They are not exempt from or in any way unaffected by RIR policy. The RIRs are
the successor registries cooperating under the MoU, acting jointly as the NRO
within IANA (operated by ICANN under the IANA Functions Contract). As such,
they are responsible for the registration and related services of all IPv4
address blocks as delegated to them by IANA, regardless of when such
registrations were initially created.
Since each of the RIRs serves as a body for the community at large to set
number resource policy and no stakeholder is prevented from participating in
the policy processes of each of the RIRs, those community set policies are
binding upon the RIRs in their ability to operate the registries. Legacy
holders have no rights to RIR services outside of those policies set by the
various RIR communities through their public open policy development processes.
> the accuracy of post-transaction records;
Accuracy of registry databases is less than ideal. This is largely due to the
lack of contracts with holders of legacy registrations and somewhat sloppy
recording processes in the earlier days of the internet. While improving the
accuracy of the registration database is a laudable goal, there is no evidence
that proves a laissez faire transfer market will actually result in an
improvement to database accuracy. Further, the elimination of critical policy
constraints on number resource distribution set by the community would be far
more detrimental than the current state of registration database inaccuracy.
> aggregation policies
The less regulated a transfer market, the smaller blocks will be traded and the
more disaggregation of routing will occur. Current market restrictions due to
policy in the ARIN region limit transfers to prefixes no longer than /24. Even
at /24, disaggregation due to market forces may well overwhelm the scalability
of the IPv4 routing table to the point that IPv4 is no longer viable. Further
deregulation can only further accelerate the dysfunctional aspects of IPv4
routing.
> market power
I'm actually not sure what this means in context, so I have no opinion on this
topic at this time.
>
> For each of these issues two or three opposing positions are set out, and the
> workshop will attempt to document who takes which position, why, and whether
> the group can come to rough consensus on one position or some new compromise
> position formulated on the spot.
>
I encourage you to publish the "two or three opposing positions" ahead of time
so that you can gather comments specifically on them prior to the actual
meeting.
> The panel is scheduled for 14:30 - 16:00 on 6 November, the first day of the
> IGF, in Conference Room 9. Although the actual remote participation link for
> this session has not yet been created by the IGF Secretariat, this page
> provides general information and guidance regarding how the IGF will
> facilitate remote participation. Baku's time zone is 9 hours ahead of US
> Eastern time, and 3 hours ahead of Continental European time.
I presume these are local time in Baku. For other readers information, Baku is
UTC+4. On November 6th, the day of this forum,
the US will be back to Standard Time (EST=UTC-5, CST=UTC-6, MST=UTC-7, and
PST=UTC-8).
Thus, the forum start time will be 5:30 AM EST, 4:30 AM CST, 3:30 AM MST, and
2:30 AM PST.
Owen
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 04:06:08 -0700
From: Steven Noble <[email protected]>
To: Patrick Klos <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] POC privacy
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Oct 26, 2012, at 3:55 PM, Patrick Klos <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote:
>> Good story aside, some people may not appreciate the fact that any anonymous
>> person on earth can track them down, especially the pizza guy had no
>> business in the network.
>>
>> I take this story as indication that the current system is lacking concern
>> for privacy.
>
> I don't think the story has any privacy implications whatsoever? It was just
> a good story about how resourceful some people can be when they need to
> contact someone who is otherwise incommunicado! (and I suspect the pizza guy
> was somehow compensated for his "delivery"?)
>
> If a person or entity has resources on the [public] Internet, and those
> resources are misbehaving in one way or another, why shouldn't "any anonymous
> person on earth" be able to track down the owner or operator/ISP of those
> resources to make sure they're aware of the bad behavior?? Whether people
> "appreciate" that level of responsibility or not, they get it when they sign
> up for the [public] Internet.
>
> If one of my hosts on one of my networks was causing an issue or not working
> properly, I hope that some kind [anonymous] person would attempt to contact
> me ASAP so I can deal with the issue. I have no reason to hide from anyone,
> and I certainly don't want any of my equipment to cause trouble for my
> customers or anyone else on the Internet!
>From NANOG earlier today comes an example of why having valid information is
>helpful:
Hi all,
Does anyone have a technical or peering contact at Belpak / Beltelecom
(AS 6697) to address
an apparent netblock hijacking issue?
AS6697 is advertising the 2.2.2.0/24 address space which is under
AS3215 management.
We've tried to announce the same prefix but it's difficult to get the
traffic back!
No answer from people listed in the whois, no peeringDB information.
Any suggestions?
Thanks in advance,
--
sarah
Mind you, this is a RIPE AS but the concept still holds.. someone is announcing
someone else's /24. It's very hard to deal with.
I think everyone knows where I stand on the issue. I spent years trying to get
my physical address updated on my AS. This can be very serious stuff (having
had /24 versions of my networks announced before) so I would much rather be
reachable at any address at any hours than responsible for someone being down
longer than necessary.
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 88, Issue 26
*****************************************
