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. Against 2013-4 (Milton L Mueller)
2. Re: Against 2013-4 (Owen DeLong)
3. Re: Against 2013-4 (Milton L Mueller)
4. Re: Against 2013-4 (Owen DeLong)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 13:50:16 +0000
From: Milton L Mueller <[email protected]>
To: "'ARIN'" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Subject: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I would have to oppose most of the statements in this proposed revision of the
RIR principles.
While it is a good idea to update a document written literally a generation ago
for a different IPv4 world, it seems obvious to me that a lot of the thinking
that went into this 2013-4 is an attempt to rigidify obsolete thinking rather
than to update things. This is a backwards-looking revision that has little
support in the real world.
It seems to me that the proposer of this policy thinks that fundamentally
nothing has changed in 25 years.
Here are some examples:
> -----Original Message-----
> Policy Statement:
>
> Section 0: Principles and Goals of the Internet Registry System
>
> 0.1. Efficient utilization based on need (Conservation)
This represents confused thinking. Conservation as a principle does NOT
necessarily mean needs-based allocation. There are many ways to conserve number
resources without the fiction of technical needs assessment. For example,
pricing or fees graduated to the number of addresses used is a form of
conservation. Market trading, in which you bid a scarcity-based price for
number blocks, is a form of conservation. Technical needs assessment as
currently performed for IPv4 is another form of conservation, but it is
arbitrary and often discriminates against specific technologies. I would not
want to see this "update" used to rationalize obsolete methods of conservation.
IPv6 allocations as I understand them are not actually based on demonstrated
need in the same way as IPv4. Whatever your position on the needs assessment
debate in IPv4, any "principle" regarding conservation should be formulated in
a way that is FORWARD-LOOKING, flexible and leaves the door open for the
community to change its definition of the best way to avoid wasting number
resources. In a nutshell: efficiency and needs assessment are NOT equivalent.
This draft clearly doesn't get that.
> 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
Again, "fairness" and "operational need" are distinct concepts. Operational
need may justify giving all the available resources to a large provider, which
some may find unfair. This statement is essentially meaningless in that it
introduces to potentially conflicting standards.
> 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.
I cannot ever support such an economically vague statement. It would authorize
a huge expansion in the role of RIRs. "The registry should prevent stockpiling"
means what exactly? What does "stockpiling" actually mean in an IPv6 world,
anyway? If I use 1/1000th of a /48 assigned to me am I "stockpiling"? Is there
any evidence that "stockpiling" is a problem? If so, where is this evidence?
> 0.1.1. Documented Justified Need (Needs Based)
This section attempts to codify and make permanent a set of policies that were
developed in the final death throes of IPv4. What a waste of time.
The idea of authorizing intrusive "accounting of resources" is precisely the
opposite of the way we need to be going, both in IPv4 and IPv6. We should let
the market allocate transfers of the fully-allocated IPv4 numbers, and current
policies, which give organizations blocks based on the number of networks they
claim and some fill ratio, for IPv6. There should be flexibility in the
methods of conservation used. There is no need to specify concrete methods and
practices in a principles document. That is just a mistake.
> All Internet number resource requests are subject to audit and
> verification by any means deemed appropriate by the regional registry.
Reveals a scarcity mentality appropriate to the last decade.
> 0.2. Hierarchical aggregation (Routability)
I agree with the comments Bill Herrin made about this earlier. " Policies for
managing Internet number resources must facilitate scalable routing."
Scalability is what we care about, not necessarily hierarchical aggregation or
anything more specific. Remember, these are supposed to be long-lasting
principles, not a codification of what we are doing now, and not a specific set
of policies. Let the community set the specific policies flexibly going forward.
Also agree with Bill that we should have an explicit principle that "ARIN does
not set Internet Routing Policy"
> 0.3. Uniqueness (Registration)
This aspect of the proposed revisions really went off the rails.
First, uniqueness should be valorized as the single most fundamental and
important principle of stewardship, the one to which all the other principles
are subordinate. It is the most important justification for having a registry.
Second, the purpose of uniqueness is NOT to aid law enforcement but to maintain
the technical integrity of the address space. Law enforcement is, as the term
implies, guided by law and if the world's governments want to require certain
forms of identification they can do so, subject to due process, legislative
checks and balances, constitutional constraints, and so on. We don't need to be
doing that job; indeed it is illegitimate and dangerous for us to attempt to
insert an address registry into that role. The person who wrote the uniqueness
aspect of this document doesn't seem to understand this.
> 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.
This section is also inappropriate for a principles document. It purports to
tell the current community, as well as all future deliberations for the next
20-odd years, how to make policy tradeoffs. That is the kind of thing that
should be left to the community itself.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 09:08:32 -0500
From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>
To: Milton L Mueller <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Jun 3, 2013, at 8:50 AM, Milton L Mueller <[email protected]> wrote:
> I would have to oppose most of the statements in this proposed revision of
> the RIR principles.
> While it is a good idea to update a document written literally a generation
> ago for a different IPv4 world, it seems obvious to me that a lot of the
> thinking that went into this 2013-4 is an attempt to rigidify obsolete
> thinking rather than to update things. This is a backwards-looking revision
> that has little support in the real world.
Milton,
The fact that you do not like needs-basis does not mean that it is obsolete
thinking.
Quite recently, we have seen repeated demonstrations of strong support for
needs basis from the community.
As such, I think it is inappropriate to characterize it as "obsolete thinking".
>> 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
>
> Again, "fairness" and "operational need" are distinct concepts. Operational
> need may justify giving all the available resources to a large provider,
> which some may find unfair. This statement is essentially meaningless in that
> it introduces to potentially conflicting standards.
>
Yes, but policy must balance those concepts where they conflict in order to be
effective. This statement may not be the best possible way to express that, but
it is a valid expression of that concept.
>> 0.1.1. Documented Justified Need (Needs Based)
>
> This section attempts to codify and make permanent a set of policies that
> were developed in the final death throes of IPv4. What a waste of time.
> The idea of authorizing intrusive "accounting of resources" is precisely the
> opposite of the way we need to be going, both in IPv4 and IPv6. We should let
> the market allocate transfers of the fully-allocated IPv4 numbers, and
> current policies, which give organizations blocks based on the number of
> networks they claim and some fill ratio, for IPv6. There should be
> flexibility in the methods of conservation used. There is no need to specify
> concrete methods and practices in a principles document. That is just a
> mistake.
Nothing in the NRPM is inherently permanent, so this argument is questionable
at best.
Needs basis and documented justified need have been required since the days
when Jon Postel tracked IP address assignments in a notebook, so I am not sure
how you can claim that this concept was developed in the final death throes of
IPv4.
I'm well aware of your desire to move to a world where IP number resources
management is as dysfunctional as radio spectrum management is today. (One need
look no further than the history of the 220Mhz band for an example of this
dysfunction).
The IPv6 portion of your argument is in favor of policies which require
documented justified need, so you appear to be arguing against yourself here.
>> 0.2. Hierarchical aggregation (Routability)
>
> I agree with the comments Bill Herrin made about this earlier. " Policies for
> managing Internet number resources must facilitate scalable routing."
> Scalability is what we care about, not necessarily hierarchical aggregation
> or anything more specific. Remember, these are supposed to be long-lasting
> principles, not a codification of what we are doing now, and not a specific
> set of policies. Let the community set the specific policies flexibly going
> forward.
>
> Also agree with Bill that we should have an explicit principle that "ARIN
> does not set Internet Routing Policy"
>
>> 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.
>
> This section is also inappropriate for a principles document. It purports to
> tell the current community, as well as all future deliberations for the next
> 20-odd years, how to make policy tradeoffs. That is the kind of thing that
> should be left to the community itself.
Since this is a document being developed by the community and which will
require the consensus of the community to be enacted, I'm not sure how you can
claim that it is not being left to the community itself.
Owen
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 14:51:01 +0000
From: Milton L Mueller <[email protected]>
To: "'Owen DeLong'" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> -----Original Message-----
> Quite recently, we have seen repeated demonstrations of strong support for
> needs basis from the community.
We have? Do you mean two ARIN people, Bill and Chris, speaking out at a RIPE
meeting?
I would not deny that there is a small core of people in North America who are
religiously devoted to the idea of needs assessments. Maybe we are talking
about a dozen people at most.
But the consensus within the RIPE APWG is pretty clearly in favor of the no
need proposal, and the topic is highly controversial even within the ARIN
region.
> Needs basis and documented justified need have been required since the
> days when Jon Postel tracked IP address assignments in a notebook, so I am
> not sure how you can claim that this concept was developed in the final
> death throes of IPv4.
No, I challenge this on a factual basis. The main legacy holders from the
mid-1980s - MIT, GE, the military, etc. - were not subject to needs assessments
as we use that term today.
If they were, you have to explain how MIT and a few others have ended up giving
back large chunks, effectively admitting that they did not need them? If they
did not need them, how did they get them? This is probably not a very fruitful
argument in that it is not forward-looking, but I do want to make it clear that
claims that "we have always done it this way" are just false.
> I'm well aware of your desire to move to a world where IP number resources
> management is as dysfunctional as radio spectrum management is today.
> (One need look no further than the history of the 220Mhz band for an
> example of this dysfunction).
Owen, having studied radio allocation since 1981 and having served at the FCC
as an intern in the 80s, I know a thing or two about how radio spectrum
allocation worked prior to auctions. And if you consider that world of beauty
contests, political pull and allocations narrowly and wastefully dedicated to
specific services to be a paragon of efficiency and fairness, I have some
reports for you to read.
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 10:03:15 -0500
From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>
To: Milton L Mueller <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
On Jun 3, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Milton L Mueller <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>
>> Quite recently, we have seen repeated demonstrations of strong support for
>> needs basis from the community.
>
> We have? Do you mean two ARIN people, Bill and Chris, speaking out at a RIPE
> meeting?
No? I mean the community response every time the elimination of needs basis has
been discussed at an ARIN meeting and/or on PPML.
> I would not deny that there is a small core of people in North America who
> are religiously devoted to the idea of needs assessments. Maybe we are
> talking about a dozen people at most.
It seems to be quite a bit more than that, actually.
> But the consensus within the RIPE APWG is pretty clearly in favor of the no
> need proposal, and the topic is highly controversial even within the ARIN
> region.
The proposal we are discussing is in the ARIN region. I will point out that
APNIC experimented with dropping needs basis for a while. They seem to have
reversed that decision.
As to the RIPE proposal 2013-03, it is in status "Awaiting decision from
proposer, Awaiting documentation" and has not even entered the comment and
review phase according to the RIPE NCC Policy Porposal page here:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/current-proposals/current-policy-proposals
So I'm not sure how you can claim that it has achieved consensus in RIPE.
It only remains controversial in the ARIN region because a small, but vocal
minority keep trying to eliminate responsible address policy, most of them so
that they can try to make money speculating on the price of IPv4 addresses.
>> Needs basis and documented justified need have been required since the
>> days when Jon Postel tracked IP address assignments in a notebook, so I am
>> not sure how you can claim that this concept was developed in the final
>> death throes of IPv4.
>
> No, I challenge this on a factual basis. The main legacy holders from the
> mid-1980s - MIT, GE, the military, etc. - were not subject to needs
> assessments as we use that term today.
The nature of needs assessment has changed, but the fundamental principle has
not.
> If they were, you have to explain how MIT and a few others have ended up
> giving back large chunks, effectively admitting that they did not need them?
> If they did not need them, how did they get them? This is probably not a very
> fruitful argument in that it is not forward-looking, but I do want to make it
> clear that claims that "we have always done it this way" are just false.
1. Their needs changed over time.
2. The evaluation and specificity of need has changed over time.
I did not say we have always done it exactly the way we do it now. I said the
principle of needs basis has always applied.
You are arguing for the elimination of the principle of needs basis, in part on
the claim that it didn't used to apply. I am debunking your claim. The
principle has always been there with the exception of a brief hiatus in the
APNIC region.
>
>> I'm well aware of your desire to move to a world where IP number resources
>> management is as dysfunctional as radio spectrum management is today.
>> (One need look no further than the history of the 220Mhz band for an
>> example of this dysfunction).
>
> Owen, having studied radio allocation since 1981 and having served at the FCC
> as an intern in the 80s, I know a thing or two about how radio spectrum
> allocation worked prior to auctions. And if you consider that world of beauty
> contests, political pull and allocations narrowly and wastefully dedicated to
> specific services to be a paragon of efficiency and fairness, I have some
> reports for you to read.
The mere fact that the FCC's prior system may have been worse than their
present system does not make the present system superior to what we are
currently using with respect to IP addresses.
Owen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130603/019117f7/attachment.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 96, Issue 4
****************************************
