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: Against 2013-4 (Nigel Titley)
2. Re: Against 2013-4 (Jason Schiller)
3. Re: Against 2013-4 (Seth Mattinen)
4. Re: Against 2013-4 (John Curran)
5. Re: Against 2013-4 (Brian Jones)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 16:40:52 +0100
From: Nigel Titley <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
On 04/06/2013 04:39, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
>
> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> ... 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.
>
> i think consensus could have been called either way after the ripe
> discussion.
Indeed, and I would further note that the RIPE region is into the last
/8, which ARIN is not. The RIPE no-need proposal is specifically tied to
the fact that we have no free IPv4 left and so the constraints have changed.
(not in favour one way or the other on either of these proposals. Just
clarifying)
Nigel Titley
RIPE NCC Board
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130604/05c819ef/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 12:17:08 -0400
From: Jason Schiller <[email protected]>
To: William Herrin <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
Message-ID:
<CAC4yj2VOCp_PyyudOfg7B42Qtha3NxkOM7Zbga=7bp-9-k0...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Bill,
I do value your input and would like to hear specifically
which concepts that are popping up that have died.
I agree that open discourse and changing of minds is
indeed a good thing.
We do need to have a discussion of alternate approaches
to conservation, changing definitions of justification and
efficient utilization for various number resources. No
doubt the needle will move and number policy is changing.
But I feel this is best accomplished in small steps, and the
smallest step is distilling out the current principles and putting
them in the NRPM. Once we do that they exist in the NRPM
and under the current PDP can be changed through community
support, like any other part of the PDP.
But if we plant a flag in the sand and say we are unwilling to
accept this text because it includes current principles that we
think should be dead, then we are left with three options:
1. keep the 17 year old RFC 2050
2. insist more "stewardship" be added to 2050bis
or that it only updates the current RFC 2050
(have this fight in the IETF)
3. lose the concepts of stewardship in RFC 2050
(I'm not sure what that does to documents that point to 2050)
And need to start this process from ground zero
___Jason
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 9:07 AM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Jason Schiller <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > If people want to throw out the current principles of stewardship,
> > and create a new set of principles that are better than the ones
> > we already have (maybe we got it wrong the first time), I support
> > that, and wish you the best of luck, but believe this to be a very
> > contentious and difficult to make progress.
> >
> > I am trying to simply document our current stewardship principles,
> > and have mostly lifted text from RFC 2050, the NRPM and the
> > PDP, such that these guiding ideas do not get lost if RFC 2050
> > is deprecated.
>
> Hi Jason,
>
> However it was intended, it's being perceived as an attempt to squelch
> the folks who've expressed a growing dissatisfaction with RFC 2050 and
> the more dated concepts it proposes. Nor is that perception mistaken.
> To achieve your stated goal you'd effectively have to disregard the
> input of a relatively broad swath of the participating community. Best
> case outcome, you divide the community over this.
>
> Trying to develop what the principles *should be* is likely to be as
> contentious as you suspect. But whether or not we achieve a proposal
> with broad consent, we'd at least have moved the thinking process in a
> forward direction.
>
>
> > Maybe a better way to phrase this question is:
> >
> > If this draft policy is passed, what changes to the current ARIN
> > practices do you oppose?
>
> I vehemently oppose this draft policy as written. It's proposes
> atavistic reversion, propping up too many concepts that either have
> died or ought to.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected]
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
>
--
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|[email protected]|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130604/73cc04fa/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 09:47:54 -0700
From: Seth Mattinen <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 6/4/13 8:25 AM, Blake Dunlap wrote:
> Now legitimately, I don't think some or maybe even most of the advocates
> of dropping needs basis are in it for personal gain. There are at least
> a few if not a lot of them that genuinely believe that some version of a
> "free" market is the best solution to directing goods to those who
> should have them. Let's not marginalize them with accusations of self
> profit motivation, it needlessly creates animosity and an us vs them
> attitude.
>
One of the more vocal proponents of dropping needs based is because that
person didn't get their way and threw a public fit of epic proportions
here on the list a while back. To me that represents the "free market"
attitude and as such I'm completely against it.
~Seth
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 16:53:24 +0000
From: John Curran <[email protected]>
To: Steven Ryerse <[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 4, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Steven Ryerse
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Of course we could ask everyone in the ARIN community to comment.
And before anyone says that they could comment if they wish, I don?t see
anywhere in my Legacy paperwork that says I(they) have to participate in this
community to be a stakeholder. This community needs to be open minded and not
closed minded - and it needs to take into consideration all ARIN stakeholders
and not just the ones that decide to comment.
Steven -
The "ARIN community" is actually very, very large; it could be considered all
potentially affected parties, which transcends simply number resource
holders
in this region, and by definition it is impossible to proactively poll all
of them
for their views.
All welcome to participate, and we have done extensive outreach at
conferences
(such Interop, CES, Usenix, Comdex, Gartner, etc.) and via hundreds of
articles
and interviews in trade publications over the years.
While we are very open, there is indeed a threshold for having ones views
heard,
and that is actual participation in the policy process. Each time draft
policy is
published, that _is_ an invitation for all interested parties to comment; no
party
or interest has a unique privilege of being polled for their views on a
given draft
policy.
FYI,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130604/fa475263/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:08:05 -0400
From: Brian Jones <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
Message-ID:
<CANyqO+HKTm=RiCSO883FdVfsxSGM9=av3wmp0ocjy-vkp25...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I have to agree that there needs to be some form of needs assessment at a
minimum otherwise like Kevin says below, " ...
they can create a market they can profit by."... and "...if we eliminate
the needs basis then I want to be first in line to request everything that
is left. I am sure there will be quite a queue.". Needs assessment should
not mean be overly conservative, but should mean be realistic, in my
opinion.
However any type of needs assessment has to incorporate and facilitate
addressing, routing, and allocation allotments that make sense. One would
not want to hinder deployments of networks due to address allocation, but
actually promote healthy growth of networks through wisely chosen
allocation of address blocks that can exists and mesh into the routing
tables with summarized routes that are manageable and hopefully have a
somewhat intuitive pattern that is understandable form the network operator
perspective.
--
Brian
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Kevin Kargel <[email protected]> wrote:
> I for one am a supporter of the needs basis. As I have said before, if we
> eliminate the needs basis then I want to be first in line to request
> everything that is left. I am sure there will be quite a queue.
>
> My perception is that the ARIN community is strongly biased to support
> needs basis and there is a very vocal minority trying to eliminate it so
> that they can create a market they can profit by. I don't read the
> opposition to needs basis as having anything to do with the good of the
> community, though there have been many mutations of the spin on it to try
> and advertise it that way.
>
> Kevin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 10:17 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
>
>
> On Jun 3, 2013, at 12:37 , Steven Ryerse <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > I take issue with the assumption that "this community" is strongly for
> needs based assignments. Certainly there are folks in this community who
> frequently and sometimes loudly voice their support for needs based
> assignment policies. Then of course there are folks in this community like
> me who are vehemently against needs based assignments and I certainly have
> voiced that frequently and sometimes loudly. There have been others who
> have done so as well from time to time.
>
> It is not an assumption. It is reflected in the numbers each time this
> question has been raised in a public policy meeting throughout ARIN's
> history.
>
> Owen
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130604/07e6be8a/attachment.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 96, Issue 14
*****************************************
