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-2013-4: RIR Principles (McTim)
2. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles (Owen DeLong)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 18:35:09 -0400
From: McTim <[email protected]>
To: John Curran <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles
Message-ID:
<cacaanxht4rfjgvgh_eveevd2jh6q7qs7uahf1g-6b7phk6+...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:15 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
> For a more in-depth consideration of this topic, I might suggest
> reviewing this recent article in the ABA Business Law Today on IP
> number transfers -
>
> <http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/blt/content/2013/05/article-03-edelman.shtml>
thanks John, a good read indeed!
--
Cheers,
McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 19:33:19 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>
To: Jason Schiller <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I oppose watering it down. Those principles applied before ARIN existed, so
it's really
not a problem to apply them to ARIN as well.
Owen
On May 30, 2013, at 1:36 PM, Jason Schiller <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> I think there is one very important point that you make that is worth calling
> out separately:
>
> Andrew writes:
>
>> JS> RFC-2050 3.1 says:
>> JS>
>> JS> "IP addresses are valid as long as the criteria continues to be met."
>
> AD> One might construe this statement to directly invalidate existing legacy
> allocations
> AD> which would now be in ARIN's policy through this policy. Others might be
> worried
> AD> that this opens the door wider to changing policy to retroactively revoke
> allocations
> AD> or assignments by changing "criteria". Furthermore, I believe this idea
> is already
> AD> handled by existing NRPM text and the RSA.
>
> What should we do here?
>
> My goal was to have a "universal section" that documented the principles of
> "stewardship"
> originally documented in RFC-2050 and be one place people could point to
> (instead of RFC-2050
> in the event that the stewardship language in 2050 is deprecated). I know
> the definition of
> stewardship has evolved, and documented in other places, all based on the
> spirit of RFC-2050.
>
> It felt to me like this is a current principle of stewardship.
>
> I am not trying to invent some new restriction on legacy address holders. If
> the community feels
> this creates some new ability to revoke legacy allocations, then we should
> consider some language
> to indicate that is not the case.
>
> If the current RSA / NRPM text documents this principle, then I'd like for
> you (or someone) to lift out
> that text, and add it to this section.
>
> The goal is to have all the principles in one section, and in the event that
> this becomes global, or
> adopted in multiple regions, they may lack the text you are thinking of.
>
> So my questions to the community:
>
> 1. Does this create some new restriction on legacy address holders?
> 1A. if yes, should this new restriction be avoided?
> Please provide draft text on what exclusions should apply to legacy
> addresses.
>
> 2. Is there already good text in the RSA / NRPM about this principle?
> 2A. If yes please quote the text.
> 2B. What text would you lift and include here? How would you generalize it
> into a principle?
>
> Thanks,
>
> __Jason
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Andrew Dul <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
>
> On 5/28/2013 9:04 PM, Jason Schiller wrote:
>> Andrew thanks for your feed back.
>>
>> I want to point out that much of this language comes from either RFC-2050 or
>> the current PDP or NRPM. I tired to change the language as little as
>> possible, except where we have commonly agreed on new language such as
>> "efficient utilization" instead of conservation. I thought that might be
>> the most uncontroversial starting point. I am not opposed to changing it,
>> especially if it makes the text less controversial.
>>
> I didn't have any of those docs in front of me when reviewing the proposal,
> so I didn't specifically note they were "existing policy text." In general,
> I'm in favor of reusing text where it makes sense. I will say that there
> probably always is room for improvement, and 2050 is now pretty dated so
> updating the language to be more relevant to today's practices & principles
> is probably a step forward.
>
>
>> ---
>>
>> WRT the LIR/ISP I agree, we should adopt whatever we think the standard term
>> should be.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> WRT using number resources instead of IP address space I would have to take
>> a careful look and make sure we are not applying principles that make sense
>> with respect IP addressing to ASNs if they don't make sense. It is not
>> clear to me if you think these changes should be throughout the text, or
>> only in section 0.1.
>
> I probably wasn't totally consistent in my initial comments. Since this is
> "RIR Principles" I believe this policy proposal should refer in general to
> number resources unless the statements directly apply only to a subset of
> Internet number resources.
>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Andrew writes:
>> > I think this section [0.1. Efficient utilization based on need
>> > (Conservation)]
>> > should have an explicit reference to the difference
>> > in conservation techniques for IPv4 and IPv6. A proposed sentence might
>> > be something like this... "Conservation goals may vary due to the
>> > technical differences between IP number resources pools, for example the
>> > relatively limited size of the IPv4 address pool causes a desire to see
>> > the number space more highly utilized compared to the vast availability
>> > of IP numbers within the IPv6 address pool."
>>
>> I made a conscious effort to keep this text in section 0.4 for clarity.
>>
>> From the draf policy section 0.4:
>> "For example, efficient utilization becomes a more prominent issue than
>> aggregation as the IPv4 free pool depletes and IPv4 resource availability in
>> any transfer market decreases. Conversely, because the IPv6 number space is
>> orders of magnitude larger than the IPv4 number space, the scale tips away
>> from efficient utilization towards hierarchical aggregation for IPv6 number
>> resources."
>>
>> Does that text fulfill your suggestion of "Conservation goals may vary due
>> to the technical differences between IP number resources pools, for example
>> the relatively limited size of the IPv4 address pool causes a desire to see
>> the number space more highly utilized compared to the vast availability of
>> IP numbers within the IPv6 address pool."
>>
>> Do you have concerns about where this text is located?
>>
>
> I realized later that I inserted similar "IPv4 is different that IPv6" into
> multiple sections, since I thought it applied in unique ways to each
> section. Perhaps for clarity it should only be in section 0.4 Stewardship,
> since this is the section that talks about balance between different elements
> and goals? I'm also OK with it being only in one section, but I would want
> it to somehow illuminate specifically that conservation varies based on
> number resource.
>
> Perhaps just add the statement w/o example? "Conservation goals may vary due
> to the technical differences between IP number resources pools."
>
> Not a showstopper for me, if it isn't in 0.1.
>
> Building on Bill's comments in his notes, I think there might be room toward
> using the term sustainability in these principles. That term is well known
> in "corporate speak" and might be closer to the RIR's goals & principles
> compared with other words.
>
>> ---
>>
>> Andrew writes:
>> > "Utilization rate of address space will be an important factor in
>> > justifying need for IP number resources. However, utilization rates
>> > will vary due to the technical differences (e.g. IPv4 vs. IPv6) between
>> > number resource pools."
>>
>> Again, I made a conscious effort to keep this text in section 0.4 for
>> clarity, and would quote the same text.
>>
>> Does that meet your concern about your proposed text?
>>
>> Do you have concerns about where this text is located?
>
> Perhaps just keeping it all in 0.4 is best.
>
>
>>
>> Should I repeat the paragraph in 0.1, 0.1.1, and 0.4?
>>
> I wouldn't repeat the paragraph.
>
>> ---
>> Andrew writes:
>> >> In order to promote increased usage of Internet number resources,
>> >> resource holders will be required to provide an accounting of
>> >> resources currently held demonstrating efficient utilization. Internet
>> >> number resources are valid as long as the criteria continues to be
>> >> met. The transfer of Internet number resources from one party to
>> >> another must be approved by the regional registries. The party trying
>> >> to obtain the resources must meet the same criteria as if they were
>> >> requesting resources directly from the IR.
>> >>
>> >> All Internet number resource requests are subject to audit and
>> >> verification by any means deemed appropriate by the regional registry.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I suspect the above two paragraphs may be lightning rods against the
>> > policy proposal. May I suggest the following single paragraph in lieu
>> > of the above two paragraphs.
>> >
>> > In order meet the Principles and Goals of the Internet Registry System,
>> > resource holders may be required from time to time to provide an
>> > accounting and current usage of resources currently held. The RIRs
>> > shall set policies to define these accounting mythologies as part of
>> > their community driven policy process.
>>
>> I'm not sure why you think these two paragraphs are lightening rods.
>>
>> RFC-2050 3.3 says:
>> "To promote increased usage of address space, the registries will
>> require an accounting of address space previously assigned to the
>> enterprise, if any."
>
> I believe including text that says orgs must keep records of how the use
> address space is totally appropriate. Record keeping doesn't necessarily
> "proposed increased usage" but does provide accountability and transparency
> which I believe should be one of the goals of the registry system.
>
>
>>
>> RFC-2050 3.1 says:
>>
>> "IP addresses are valid as long as the criteria continues to be met."
>
> One might construe this statement to directly invalidate existing legacy
> allocations which would now be in ARIN's policy through this policy. Others
> might be worried that this opens the door wider to changing policy to
> retroactively revoke allocations or assignments by changing "criteria".
> Furthermore, I believe this idea is already handled by existing NRPM text and
> the RSA.
>
>
>> RFC-2050 4.7 says
>>
>>
>> "The transfer
>> of IP addresses from one party to another must be
>> approved by the regional registries. The party trying to obtain
>> the IP address must meet the same criteria as if they were
>> requesting an IP address directly from the IR."
>>
> I believe this "policy" element is best handled in the details section of the
> NRPM rather than the principles section. ARIN's policies already define
> transfers. Having a generic "RIRs shall determine IP number resources
> transfer policies through their community drive policy development process."
> might be a good addition to this proposal.
>
>
>> RFC-2050 4.4 says:
>> "All IP address requests are subject to audit and verification
>> by any means deemed appropriate by the regional registry."
>>
> I just remember for multiple years discussing policy 2007-14 & others when we
> put into policy existing auditing and review practices. Since ARIN's
> policies and RSA already talk about audit procedures, I also thought this was
> not necessary. The language "by any means deemed appropriate by the regional
> registry" is a wide open door that many I believe won't like. By using text
> to say auditing is done by the community through adopted policy you limit an
> RIR's auditing to specifically what the community wants the registry to do.
>
>
>> And there is lots of text about conservation in RFC-2050 and
>> efficient utilization in the NRPM.
>>
>> Can you elaborate on the lightening rod potin?
>>
> See above comments.
>
>> I can only guess you are suggesting that the community wants
>> to depart from the principles in RFC-2050, but think you must
>> mean something else.
>>
>> What am I missing here?
>>
>
> Hopefully my comments above illuminate the concerns I had about the text.
> Basically it comes down to "modernizing" the 2050 text/principles, and
> keeping principles in the principles section and not putting specific policy
> in the principles section.
>
>
>>
>> Andrew writes:
>> >> 0.2. Hierarchical aggregation (Routability)
>> >>
>> >> Policies for managing Internet number resources must support
>> >> distribution of globally unique Internet addresses in a hierarchical
>> >> manner, permitting the routing scalability of the addresses.
>> >
>> > Should the RIR's goals be "LISP agnostic"? That is if LISP becomes the
>> > predominant routing methodology in the future, one would not necessarily
>> > expect the goals of the RIRs to change.
>> >
>> > Suggested change to end of first sentence.
>> >
>> > ... permitting the routing scalability of the addresses as required by
>> > the current technical limitations of global routing protocols.
>>
>> I think this change is good even w/o considering LISP.
>> Imagine we have new holographic memory that can hold orders of
>> magnitude more data and decrease read time
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Andrew writes:
>> >
>> >> 0.3. Uniqueness (Registration)
>> >>
>> >> c) to ensure that a provider has exhausted a majority of
>> >> its current CIDR allocation, thereby justifying an additional
>> >> allocation d) to assist in IP allocation studies.
>> >
>> > Suggested revision for "C"
>> >
>> > to allow a LIR to demonstrate and disclose reassignment of IP number
>> > resources to third-parties
>>
>> I think the point is to demonstrate reassignment data to demonstrate
>> efficient utilization.
>> But I also think that point is covered in section 0.1.1, So the rewrite here
>> is ok.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Andrew writes:
>> > Perhaps add a statement specifically about Stewardship
>> >
>> > "Stewardship of IP number resources is the balance of overseeing and
>> > protecting the interests of all Internet stakeholders to further the
>> > development and expansion of the Internet and the Internet Registry
>> > System."
>>
>> I do not oppose this text.
>>
>> Andrew also writes...
>> >
>> > justified need as a conflicting goal should be explicitly mentioned.
>> >
>> > "It should be noted that efficient utilization, justified need, and
>> >hierarchical aggregation are often conflicting goals."
>>
>> I'm not sure this parses correctly... This sounds to me like there are
>> conflicts between all three:
>>
>> efficient utilization vs justified need vs hierarchical aggregation.
>>
>> How about:
>> "It should be noted that efficient utilization based on justified need, and
>> hierarchical aggregation are often conflicting goals."
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Andrew Dul <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I support adding these guiding principles to the NRPM, furthermore I
>> would support efforts to introduce this policy in all RIR regions to
>> make this a global policy.
>>
>> Comments on the proposed text in-line below.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> On 5/17/2013 9:53 AM, ARIN wrote:
>> > Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4
>> > RIR Principles
>> >
>> > On 16 May 2013 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-187
>> > RIR Principles" as a Draft Policy.
>> >
>> > Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4 is below and can be found at:
>> > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2013_4.html
>> >
>> >
>> > ## * ##
>> >
>> >
>> > Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4
>> > RIR Principles
>> >
>> > Date: 17 May 2013
>> >
>> > Problem Statement:
>> >
>> > The original text in RFC 2050 both "describes the registry system for
>> > the distribution of globally unique Internet address space and
>> > registry operations" and provides "rules and guidelines [principles]
>> > governing the distribution of this address space."
>> >
>> > The currently proposed update (RFC2050bis) "provides information about
>> > the current Internet Numbers Registry System used in the distribution
>> > of globally unique Internet Protocol (IP) address space and autonomous
>> > system (AS) numbers" and "provides information about the processes for
>> > further evolution of the Internet Numbers Registry System."
>> >
>> > This means that the guiding principles of stewardship are not
>> > currently being carried forward into the new document. The goals of
>> > Conservation (efficient utilization based on need), Routability
>> > (hierarchical aggregation), and Registration (uniqueness) are as
>> > important, if not more so, now that the transition to IPv6 is upon us.
>> > This can be rectified by documenting these principles in RIR policy.
>> >
>> > Policy Statement:
>> >
>> > Section 0: Principles and Goals of the Internet Registry System
>> >
>> > 0.1. Efficient utilization based on need (Conservation)
>> >
>> > Policies for managing Internet number resources must support fair
>> > distribution of globally unique Internet address space according to
>> > the operational needs of the end-users and Internet Service Providers
>> > operating networks using this address space. The registry should
>> > prevent stockpiling in order to maximize the conservation and
>> > efficient utilization of the Internet address space.
>>
>> This section should use the new proposed convention of "LIR/ISP" as
>> being developed in ARIN-2013-5.
>>
>> s/this address space/IP number resources/r
>> s/Internet address space/IP number resources/r
>>
>> I think this section should have an explicit reference to the difference
>> in conservation techniques for IPv4 and IPv6. A proposed sentence might
>> be something like this... "Conservation goals may vary due to the
>> technical differences between IP number resources pools, for example the
>> relatively limited size of the IPv4 address pool causes a desire to see
>> the number space more highly utilized compared to the vast availability
>> of IP numbers within the IPv6 address pool."
>>
>> >
>> > 0.1.1. Documented Justified Need (Needs Based)
>> >
>> > Assignment of Internet number resources is based on documented
>> > operational need. Utilization rate of address space will be a key
>> > factor in number resource assignment. To this end, registrants should
>> > have documented justified need available for each assignment.
>> > Organizations will be assigned resources based on immediate
>> > utilization plus expected utilization.
>>
>> Utilization rate is much more important for IPv4 than IPv6.
>>
>> Suggested revision for "Utilization rate of address space will be a key
>> factor in number resource assignment."
>>
>> "Utilization rate of address space will be an important factor in
>> justifying need for IP number resources. However, utilization rates
>> will vary due to the technical differences (e.g. IPv4 vs. IPv6) between
>> number resource pools."
>>
>> >
>> > In order to promote increased usage of Internet number resources,
>> > resource holders will be required to provide an accounting of
>> > resources currently held demonstrating efficient utilization. Internet
>> > number resources are valid as long as the criteria continues to be
>> > met. The transfer of Internet number resources from one party to
>> > another must be approved by the regional registries. The party trying
>> > to obtain the resources must meet the same criteria as if they were
>> > requesting resources directly from the IR.
>> >
>> > All Internet number resource requests are subject to audit and
>> > verification by any means deemed appropriate by the regional registry.
>> >
>>
>> I suspect the above two paragraphs may be lightning rods against the
>> policy proposal. May I suggest the following single paragraph in lieu
>> of the above two paragraphs.
>>
>> In order meet the Principles and Goals of the Internet Registry System,
>> resource holders may be required from time to time to provide an
>> accounting and current usage of resources currently held. The RIRs
>> shall set policies to define these accounting mythologies as part of
>> their community driven policy process.
>>
>>
>> > 0.2. Hierarchical aggregation (Routability)
>> >
>> > Policies for managing Internet number resources must support
>> > distribution of globally unique Internet addresses in a hierarchical
>> > manner, permitting the routing scalability of the addresses. This
>> > scalability is necessary to ensure proper operation of Internet
>> > routing, although it must be stressed that routability is in no way
>> > guaranteed with the allocation or assignment of IPv4 addresses.
>> >
>>
>> Should the RIR's goals be "LISP agnostic"? That is if LISP becomes the
>> predominant routing methodology in the future, one would not necessarily
>> expect the goals of the RIRs to change.
>>
>> Suggested change to end of first sentence.
>>
>> ... permitting the routing scalability of the addresses as required by
>> the current technical limitations of global routing protocols.
>>
>> > 0.3. Uniqueness (Registration)
>> >
>> > Provision of a public registry documenting Internet number resource
>> > allocation, reallocation, assignment, and reassignment is necessary to:
>> >
>> > a) ensure uniqueness and to to provide operational staff with
>> > information on who is using the number resource b) to provide a
>> > contact in case of operational/security problems (e.g. Law
>> > Enforcement) c) to ensure that a provider has exhausted a majority of
>> > its current CIDR allocation, thereby justifying an additional
>> > allocation d) to assist in IP allocation studies.
>>
>> Suggested revision for "C"
>>
>> to allow a LIR to demonstrate and disclose reassignment of IP number
>> resources to third-parties
>>
>> >
>> > It is imperative that reassignment information be submitted in a
>> > prompt and efficient manner to facilitate database maintenance and
>> > ensure database integrity.
>> >
>> > 0.4. Stewardship
>> >
>> > It should be noted that efficient utilization and hierarchical
>> > aggregation are often conflicting goals. All the above goals may
>> > sometimes be in conflict with the interests of individual end-users or
>> > Internet Service Providers. Care must be taken to ensure balance with
>> > these conflicting goals given the resource availability, relative size
>> > of the resource, and number resource specific technical dynamics, for
>> > each type of number resource. For example, efficient utilization
>> > becomes a more prominent issue than aggregation as the IPv4 free pool
>> > depletes and IPv4 resource availability in any transfer market
>> > decreases. Conversely, because the IPv6 number space is orders of
>> > magnitude larger than the IPv4 number space, the scale tips away from
>> > efficient utilization towards hierarchical aggregation for IPv6 number
>> > resources.
>>
>> Perhaps add a statement specifically about Stewardship
>>
>> "Stewardship of IP number resources is the balance of overseeing and
>> protecting the interests of all Internet stakeholders to further the
>> development and expansion of the Internet and the Internet Registry System."
>>
>> Also...
>>
>> justified need as a conflicting goal should be explicitly mentioned.
>>
>> "It should be noted that efficient utilization, justified need, and
>> hierarchical aggregation are often conflicting goals."
>>
>> Use the new LIR/ISP convention instead of "Internet Service Providers"
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Comments:
>> >
>> > a. Timetable for implementation: immediately
>> >
>> > b. I believe that it would be beneficial for IANA to adopt these
>> > principles as well, and encourage the community to consider a global
>> > policy proposal.
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > PPML
>> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
>> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> _______________________________________________________
>> Jason Schiller|NetOps|[email protected]|571-266-0006
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> _______________________________________________________
> Jason Schiller|NetOps|[email protected]|571-266-0006
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130531/011cf19c/attachment.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 95, Issue 21
*****************************************
