Re: ARIN board accountability to network operators (was: RE: [arin-ppml] [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal)
john, i think your attemt to move the discussion to the arin ppml list exemplifies one core of the problem. this is not about address policy, but arin thinks of itelf as a regulator not a registry. contrast with the ripe community and the ncc, which is not nirvana but is a hell of a lot better. among other key differences, the ncc is engaged with the community through technical and business working groups. e.g. the database working group covers what you think of as whois and the routing registry. the wg developed the darned irr definition and continues to evolve it. consequence? the irr is actively used in two regions in the world, europe and japan (which likes anything ocd:-). the routing wg works with the ops to develop routing technology such as route flap damping. there is a reason that serious ops attend ripe meetings. yes, a whole lot of folk with enable are engaged. for years there has been a wg on the global layer nine issues. the dns wg deals with reverse delegation, root server ops, etc. and guess what, all the dns heavy techs and ops are engaged. there is a wg for discussing what services the ncc offers. the recent simplification and opening of services to legacy and PI holders happened in the ncc services wg, it was about services not addressing policy. and this is aside from daniel's global measurement empire. not sure it is a registry's job to do this, but it is a serious contribution to the internet. the ncc is engaged with its community on the subhects that actually interest operators and affect our daily lives. there is nothing of interest at an arin meeting, a bunch of junior wannabe regulators and vigilantes making an embarrassing mess. i've even taken to skipping nanog, if ras talks i can watch the recording. all the cool kids will be in warsaw. ops vote with our feet. randy
Re: ARIN board accountability to network operators (was: RE: [arin-ppml] [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal)
> On Mar 28, 2014, at 5:27 AM, "Randy Bush" wrote: > > john, > > i think your attemt to move the discussion to the arin ppml list > exemplifies one core of the problem. Randy - I offered ppml out of respect to the nanog subscribers, that is all... /John > > > > and this is aside from daniel's global measurement empire. not sure it > is a registry's job to do this, but it is a serious contribution to the > internet. > > the ncc is engaged with its community on the subhects that actually > interest operators and affect our daily lives. > > there is nothing of interest at an arin meeting, a bunch of junior > wannabe regulators and vigilantes making an embarrassing mess. i've > even taken to skipping nanog, if ras talks i can watch the recording. > all the cool kids will be in warsaw. ops vote with our feet. > > ran
Re: ARIN board accountability to network operators (was: RE: [arin-ppml] [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal)
And I would welcome discussion of how ARIN (and nanog) can be more like RIPE - that is very much up to this community and its participation far more than ARIN.. /John > On Mar 28, 2014, at 5:27 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > > john, > > i think your attemt to move the discussion to the arin ppml list > exemplifies one core of the problem. this is not about address policy, > but arin thinks of itelf as a regulator not a registry. > > contrast with the ripe community and the ncc, which is not nirvana but > is a hell of a lot better. among other key differences, the ncc is > engaged with the community through technical and business working > groups. > > e.g. the database working group covers what you think of as whois and > the routing registry. the wg developed the darned irr definition and > continues to evolve it. consequence? the irr is actively used in two > regions in the world, europe and japan (which likes anything ocd:-). > > the routing wg works with the ops to develop routing technology such as > route flap damping. there is a reason that serious ops attend ripe > meetings. yes, a whole lot of folk with enable are engaged. > > for years there has been a wg on the global layer nine issues. > > the dns wg deals with reverse delegation, root server ops, etc. and > guess what, all the dns heavy techs and ops are engaged. > > there is a wg for discussing what services the ncc offers. the recent > simplification and opening of services to legacy and PI holders happened > in the ncc services wg, it was about services not addressing policy. > > and this is aside from daniel's global measurement empire. not sure it > is a registry's job to do this, but it is a serious contribution to the > internet. > > the ncc is engaged with its community on the subhects that actually > interest operators and affect our daily lives. > > there is nothing of interest at an arin meeting, a bunch of junior > wannabe regulators and vigilantes making an embarrassing mess. i've > even taken to skipping nanog, if ras talks i can watch the recording. > all the cool kids will be in warsaw. ops vote with our feet. > > randy >
Re: ARIN board accountability to network operators (was: RE: [arin-ppml] [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal)
hi john, >> i think your attemt to move the discussion to the arin ppml list >> exemplifies one core of the problem. > I offered ppml out of respect to the nanog subscribers, that is all... i will refrain from characterizing the ppml list. needless to say, i do not subscribe. my point is that what arin does should be of interest to nanog subscribers. in theory, the ops are the arin community, the registry serves operations. if it is not of interest to ops, it is not serving the community. [ get out of s'pore yet? drc got delayed a day with a missing part for his plane! ] randy
Re: ARIN board accountability to network operators (was: RE: [arin-ppml] [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal)
On Mar 27, 2014 3:03 PM, "John Curran" wrote: > > And I would welcome discussion of how ARIN (and nanog) can be more like RIPE - that is very much up to this community and its participation far more than ARIN.. > > /John > How about we fold ARIN into RIPE? Why not? I agree with all of Randy's points. I am sure RIPE can easily scale up to take on ARIN services, with fees being reduced for all involved due to economies of scale. CB > > On Mar 28, 2014, at 5:27 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > > > > john, > > > > i think your attemt to move the discussion to the arin ppml list > > exemplifies one core of the problem. this is not about address policy, > > but arin thinks of itelf as a regulator not a registry. > > > > contrast with the ripe community and the ncc, which is not nirvana but > > is a hell of a lot better. among other key differences, the ncc is > > engaged with the community through technical and business working > > groups. > > > > e.g. the database working group covers what you think of as whois and > > the routing registry. the wg developed the darned irr definition and > > continues to evolve it. consequence? the irr is actively used in two > > regions in the world, europe and japan (which likes anything ocd:-). > > > > the routing wg works with the ops to develop routing technology such as > > route flap damping. there is a reason that serious ops attend ripe > > meetings. yes, a whole lot of folk with enable are engaged. > > > > for years there has been a wg on the global layer nine issues. > > > > the dns wg deals with reverse delegation, root server ops, etc. and > > guess what, all the dns heavy techs and ops are engaged. > > > > there is a wg for discussing what services the ncc offers. the recent > > simplification and opening of services to legacy and PI holders happened > > in the ncc services wg, it was about services not addressing policy. > > > > and this is aside from daniel's global measurement empire. not sure it > > is a registry's job to do this, but it is a serious contribution to the > > internet. > > > > the ncc is engaged with its community on the subhects that actually > > interest operators and affect our daily lives. > > > > there is nothing of interest at an arin meeting, a bunch of junior > > wannabe regulators and vigilantes making an embarrassing mess. i've > > even taken to skipping nanog, if ras talks i can watch the recording. > > all the cool kids will be in warsaw. ops vote with our feet. > > > > randy > > >
Re: ARIN board accountability to network operators (was: RE: [arin-ppml] [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal)
nanog is a separable game. it is currently very confused between form and substance, making committees for everything. like the bcop thing. two organizations, nanog and isoc, forming organizational structures to create a document store. the ops' doc store is ripe's because the ripe wgs produced work and someone realized they needed a place to stash it. so now nanog and isoc need to flag-plant. the up-side is that it's a great b-ark, keeps them from doing damage. > And I would welcome discussion of how ARIN (and nanog) can be more > like RIPE i purposefully phrased it a bit differently, how can arin engage, get real participation from, and serve its community, the operators. i was stealing examples from ripe. but, for concrete action, how about a half day session at the next nanog meeting on, for example, arin database services, whois and irr. not to try to reach hard conclusions or plans. but to open a dialog to explore what the community gets and wants from these services and how they are provided. or pick another key service. randy
Re: ARIN board accountability to network operators (was: RE: [arin-ppml] [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal)
On Mar 28, 2014, at 6:04 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > i will refrain from characterizing the ppml list. needless to say, i do > not subscribe. > > my point is that what arin does should be of interest to nanog > subscribers. in theory, the ops are the arin community, the registry > serves operations. if it is not of interest to ops, it is not serving > the community. I fully agree, but also respect that this community has made some conscience decisions regarding having ARIN be quite registry focused and letting NANOG evolve as as a forum of the operators in the region. I believe that several of the initiatives that you noted from the RIPE region could easily be viewed as falling under either organization. This community should not be disadvantaged by the structure of having a distinct registry and distinct operator forum, but it does mean that we need to be able to sort out _what_ the operators want and then where it gets done. Internet routing registries are a fine example; one could argue that it should be integrated with the number resource registry, but we also have examples of independent routing registries in active use (and I can see some potential reasons why operators might even want there to be a healthy separation between those functions.) If the community has one mind of what routing registry capabilities is wants here, including how it wants it governed and operated, I am quite certain that ARIN will support the direction, regardless of where it ends up being operated and how it ends up being governed. The lack I have noted over the years is lack of clear direction from the community, but that should not be something "ARIN" jumps in and tries to bring about - it needs to be of interest to (and led by) the operators on this list. We agree that ARIN needs to be relevant to the ops community, and I am very open minded to any suggestions you have, but don't exactly think that your examples from RIPE are necessarily where we want ARIN to go as much as things we want to have happen, whether that's ARIN, NANOG, or other associated organizations. On the other hand, your governance examples from RIPE (e.g. "wg for discussing what services the ncc offers") are directly on target, and I will share them on some other lists that may defy characterization by you. > [ get out of s'pore yet? drc got delayed a day with a missing part for > his plane! ] (Getting closer... the last plane was a fail due to fuel pump issues; my dearest friends at United seemed have rerouted me through Hong Kong but omitted a flight onward. Oh well.) Thanks! /John
Re: ARIN board accountability to network operators (was: RE: [arin-ppml] [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal)
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 02:04:30AM +, John Curran wrote: > Internet routing registries are a fine example; one could argue that > it should be integrated with the number resource registry, but we also > have examples of independent routing registries in active use (and I > can see some potential reasons why operators might even want there to > be a healthy separation between those functions.) Speaking for myself, only here: I'll be happy to let ARIN manage routability of assignments, once they guarantee routability of said assignments. Cheers, --msa
Re: ARIN board accountability to network operators (was: RE: [arin-ppml] [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal)
On Mar 28, 2014, at 6:42 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > ... > i purposefully phrased it a bit differently, how can arin engage, get > real participation from, and serve its community, the operators. i was > stealing examples from ripe. > > but, for concrete action, how about a half day session at the next nanog > meeting on, for example, arin database services, whois and irr. not to > try to reach hard conclusions or plans. but to open a dialog to explore > what the community gets and wants from these services and how they are > provided. My earlier message was sent before I saw this, but I think we converged on the important point: ARIN needs to engage in a much better manner with the ops community (more than just an ARIN update preso and registration helpdesk); this should be closer to a "services wg" model. Got it, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Re: ARIN board accountability to network operators (was: RE: [arin-ppml] [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal)
I, for one, would not want to start having to pay RIPE-level fees. ARIN fees are a much better deal than RIPE fees. Owen On Mar 27, 2014, at 3:10 PM, Cb B wrote: > On Mar 27, 2014 3:03 PM, "John Curran" wrote: >> >> And I would welcome discussion of how ARIN (and nanog) can be more like > RIPE - that is very much up to this community and its participation far > more than ARIN.. >> >> /John >> > > How about we fold ARIN into RIPE? Why not? I agree with all of Randy's > points. I am sure RIPE can easily scale up to take on ARIN services, with > fees being reduced for all involved due to economies of scale. > > CB > >>> On Mar 28, 2014, at 5:27 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >>> >>> john, >>> >>> i think your attemt to move the discussion to the arin ppml list >>> exemplifies one core of the problem. this is not about address policy, >>> but arin thinks of itelf as a regulator not a registry. >>> >>> contrast with the ripe community and the ncc, which is not nirvana but >>> is a hell of a lot better. among other key differences, the ncc is >>> engaged with the community through technical and business working >>> groups. >>> >>> e.g. the database working group covers what you think of as whois and >>> the routing registry. the wg developed the darned irr definition and >>> continues to evolve it. consequence? the irr is actively used in two >>> regions in the world, europe and japan (which likes anything ocd:-). >>> >>> the routing wg works with the ops to develop routing technology such as >>> route flap damping. there is a reason that serious ops attend ripe >>> meetings. yes, a whole lot of folk with enable are engaged. >>> >>> for years there has been a wg on the global layer nine issues. >>> >>> the dns wg deals with reverse delegation, root server ops, etc. and >>> guess what, all the dns heavy techs and ops are engaged. >>> >>> there is a wg for discussing what services the ncc offers. the recent >>> simplification and opening of services to legacy and PI holders happened >>> in the ncc services wg, it was about services not addressing policy. >>> >>> and this is aside from daniel's global measurement empire. not sure it >>> is a registry's job to do this, but it is a serious contribution to the >>> internet. >>> >>> the ncc is engaged with its community on the subhects that actually >>> interest operators and affect our daily lives. >>> >>> there is nothing of interest at an arin meeting, a bunch of junior >>> wannabe regulators and vigilantes making an embarrassing mess. i've >>> even taken to skipping nanog, if ras talks i can watch the recording. >>> all the cool kids will be in warsaw. ops vote with our feet. >>> >>> randy >>> >>
Re: ARIN board accountability to network operators (was: RE: [arin-ppml] [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal)
On Thursday, March 27, 2014 11:27:26 PM Randy Bush wrote: > e.g. the database working group covers what you think of > as whois and the routing registry. the wg developed the > darned irr definition and continues to evolve it. > consequence? the irr is actively used in two regions in > the world, europe and japan (which likes anything > ocd:-). The RIPE IRR is used very widely in the Africa region, too. Great toolset. Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: ARIN board accountability to network operators (was: RE: [arin-ppml] [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal)
> On 27.03.2014, at 22:27, Randy Bush wrote: > > ...and this is aside from daniel's global measurement empire. not sure it > is a registry's job to do this, but it is a serious contribution to the > internet. ... there is the 'measurement analysis and tools' working group http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/mat guiding this work, and it even has an 'out-of-area' co-chair to emphasize the *globalness* of our empire ;-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) seriously: the ripe ncc was not conceived as a "registry" but as an association of operators where they can organise common activities that require neutrality, expertise and common funding. so whether it is a 'registry job' is irrelevant in our context as long as the community agrees it is useful and the membership of the association agrees to fund it with their fees. the huge overlap between community at large and paying membership keeps this consistent. daniel -- Sent from a hand held device.
Re: ARIN board accountability to network operators (was: RE: [arin-ppml] [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal)
Hi Owen, > I, for one, would not want to start having to pay RIPE-level fees. > > ARIN fees are a much better deal than RIPE fees. Only up to Small... The RIPE NCC membership fee is €1750 (±$2400 currently) for everybody. The ARIN fees are between $500 and $32000, with category Small at $2000 and Medium at $4000. I personally am glad about this (although in ARIN I would probably be Small) because it doesn't give operators any financial incentive to stingy when giving their customers IPv6 prefixes. If you want to give a million customers a /48 it is not going to cost you more then giving them a /60. IPv6 resources are not such a scarce resource compared to IPv4, so differentiating price based on the amount of integers you need doesn't make much sense in the current world anymore :) But: this is all RIPE NCC members/AGM stuff, independent of the RIPE community and its working groups. (well the RIPE NCC facilitates the RIPE meetings (note: RIPE meeting, not RIPE NCC meeting) and without the help of the NCC the RIPE community wouldn't have such well organised meetings. The NCC only facilitates though, it doesn't control or influence the RIPE working groups) and the structure of the RIPE working groups was what Randy was referring to. Cheers, Sander
Re: ARIN board accountability to network operators (was: RE: [arin-ppml] [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal)
On Mar 28, 2014, at 5:58 AM, Sander Steffann wrote: > Hi Owen, > >> I, for one, would not want to start having to pay RIPE-level fees. >> >> ARIN fees are a much better deal than RIPE fees. > > Only up to Small... The RIPE NCC membership fee is €1750 (±$2400 currently) > for everybody. The ARIN fees are between $500 and $32000, with category Small > at $2000 and Medium at $4000. I personally am glad about this (although in > ARIN I would probably be Small) because it doesn't give operators any > financial incentive to stingy when giving their customers IPv6 prefixes. > > If you want to give a million customers a /48 it is not going to cost you > more then giving them a /60. IPv6 resources are not such a scarce resource > compared to IPv4, so differentiating price based on the amount of integers > you need doesn't make much sense in the current world anymore :) > > But: this is all RIPE NCC members/AGM stuff, independent of the RIPE > community and its working groups. (well the RIPE NCC facilitates the RIPE > meetings (note: RIPE meeting, not RIPE NCC meeting) and without the help of > the NCC the RIPE community wouldn't have such well organised meetings. The > NCC only facilitates though, it doesn't control or influence the RIPE working > groups) and the structure of the RIPE working groups was what Randy was > referring to. Compare and contrast the costs of being a PI holding end-user in the RIPE region to those in the ARIN region and the difference becomes much more noticeable. Owen
Re: ARIN board accountability to network operators (was: RE: [arin-ppml] [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal)
Hi Owen, > Compare and contrast the costs of being a PI holding end-user in the RIPE > region to those in the ARIN region and the difference becomes much more > noticeable. Yeah, RIPE NCC is definitely much cheaper for PI: no initial registration fee of ≥$500. The maintenance cost is $100/year vs €100/year (±$137) so there is a little difference there. The $37 difference will take at least 13.5 years to make up for the $500 though. And that is just for up to a /22. The $4000 initial fee for a /16 PI would take you more than a hundred years :) So yes: for PI the difference is much more noticeable, in favour of the RIPE NCC :) Cheers, Sander
Re: ARIN board accountability to network operators (was: RE: [arin-ppml] [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal)
On 3/27/14 6:42 PM, "Randy Bush" wrote: >nanog is a separable game. it is currently very confused between form >and substance, making committees for everything. like the bcop thing. >two organizations, nanog and isoc, forming organizational structures to >create a document store. the ops' doc store is ripe's because the ripe >wgs produced work and someone realized they needed a place to stash it. I like this example, but not sure how it could apply here. Need a NANOG document series? It wouldn't be an ARIN document series, would it? Or did I miss the point of your example? > >i purposefully phrased it a bit differently, how can arin engage, get >real participation from, and serve its community, the operators. i was >stealing examples from ripe. > >but, for concrete action, how about a half day session at the next nanog >meeting on, for example, arin database services, whois and irr. not to >try to reach hard conclusions or plans. but to open a dialog to explore >what the community gets and wants from these services and how they are >provided. I like this example. I also appreciate the policy hour, where NANOG attendees get a few minutes on ARIN proposals. In another message you complimented the RIPE Atlas project. I like the work from APNIC's labs, too. I also like LACNIC's development projects, FRIDA, +RAICES, and education efforts. Would these kinds of efforts be in scope for ARIN? Does ARIN need a Chief Scientist (a la Karrenberg or Huston)? Or is that a NANOG role, since it might include things outside of management of number resources? I think North American operators are missing some advantages of the closely coordinated RIR/NOG operations in other regions, and I would like to see them closer together here. Unfortunately, it is not clear to me that the examples above are in charter for either NANOG or ARIN. I'd be happy to re-charter either, but that's probably a topic for NANOG-futures. > >or pick another key service. DNS? DNSsec? Security? > >randy Lee
