Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
There are major GSM-land wireless operators who provide service to devices like Novatel's line of pocket-size WLAN hotspots. You can just buy one and stick a SIM in it, but some of the ops offer them as part of a business user package. I hope that means they get a proper IP or more handed out from the SGSN, as otherwise this would be a true orgy of NAT. (Top posting on mobile) Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net wrote: On 2/10/2011 9:11 PM, Jared Mauch wrote: I was explaining to my wife today how it felt like the nanog list went to 3x the typical mail volume recently with all the IPv6 stuff this month. Why the pro-IPv6 crowd was happy, the anti-IPv6 crowd is groaning (including those that truly despise the whole thing, etc..) I was having fun discussing with my wife how ARIN stuff ended up on NANOG, NANOG stuff ended up on PPML, and I've been listening and participating in debates concerning IPv6 and CGN (apparently BEHAVE WG adopted CGN over LSN) on 4 different mailing lists. To be honest, though. I'm pro-IPv6, but I'm not happy. Anyone who is happy doesn't care about those innocent people who are ignorant of what is going on and why. I honestly think that the LSN situations won't be as bad as some of us think. The big carriers have already been doing some flavor of this with their cellular/data networks. Doing this on some of the consumer networks will likely not be that much pain. Obviously the pain will vary per subscriber/home. snip lots of good stuff I agree with IPv4 is dead in my opinion. Not dead as in useless, but to the point where I don't think there is value in spending a lot of time worrying about the v4 side of the world when so much needs to be fixed in IPv6 land. Service requirements in cellular networks are considerably different than wireline. Apparently, most cell customers don't hook a CPE router into their cell network and play their game consoles over it, along with many other situations. This actually means that most often, they are running a single stage NAT44 LSN (which still breaks stuff, but most of the things it would break aren't normally transiting the cellular networks). snip more good stuff I agree with I agree. However, because the largest networks and corporations decided (and some still do) to wait until the last moment to deal with IPv6, we will have to deal with IPv4 in much worse conditions. I know that there are large cellular networks which use DoD bogons behind huge LSN implementations. I know that some networks apparently aren't happy with using DoD bogons and would like to waste even more space. The best solution for such a case (and to solve all arguments on the matter) is to secure assurances on the bogons so that they can be safely used. Jack -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On 2/10/2011 1:49 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: Yeah, this is a sure path to having all of them say exactly that in unison. Do you want to be right? Or would you prefer to be effective? I think he wants to know which bogons will continue to be safe to use. :P Jack
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:13:49 -0600 From: Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com With them not requiring a /8 in the first place (after CIDR); one begins to wonder how much of their /8 allocations they actually touched in any meaningful way. i expect that after final depletion there will be some paid transfers from some of the large legacy blocks. i have no personal knowledge of HP's situation or indeed any /8 holder's situation, but if the market value of these transfers ever meaningfully exceeds the renumbering penalty then their beancounters will find a way to get it done. that's the way of the world. i can imagine this NOT happening. most businesses are looking for long term strategic investments not quick-fix short-term band-aids. a buddy loaned me a macbook after my thinkpad was stolen, and i loved it, and i went down to the apple store to buy one of my own just like my buddy's loaner and they said we only sell that with the chicklet keyboard now and i tried it and hated it. i could buy my buddy's laptop but without applecare and without the ability to replace it if it's lost/stolen i'm not willing to make that investment. so for me it's another thinkpad. so if a company who traditionally needs a lot of IPv4 to grow their network knows that they can get one last quarter's worth of it from some legacy /8 holder, they might do some kind of paid transfer, or they might just hum some dire straits and keep moving with their ipv6 plans. Now it's past last call for alcohol Past recall has been here and gone The landlord finally paid us all The satin jazzmen have put away their horns And we're standing outside of this wonderland Looking so bereaved and so bereft Like a Bowery bum when he finally understands The bottle's empty and there's nothing left (Your Latest Trick) for some IPv4 based businesses a /8 would be more than a lifetime supply, but there's a value ceiling imposed by the space other people can get. (when everybody else has made other arrangements, the relative value of one's own hoard decreases.) Perhaps the RIRs should personally and directly ask each /8 legacy holder to provide account of their utilization (which portions of the allocation is used, how many hosts), and ASK for each unused /22 [or shorter] to be returned. The legacy holders might (or might not) refuse. They might (or might not) tell the RIRs Hell no In any case, the registry should ASK and publish an indication for each legacy /8 at least. So the community will know which (if any) legacy /8 holders are likely to be returning the community's IPv4 addresses that they obtained but don't have need for. The community should also know which /8 legacy holders say Hell no, we're keeping all our /8s, and not telling you how much of the community's IPv4 resources we're actually using. this gets into the controversial topic of an RIR's standing with respect to legacy space, and i'll leave that to the lawyers to talk about. but as owen and others have said, if a legacy holder were approached in this way knowing that their answer was going to be on the public record in the way, they probably would see no incentive at all to answer the question.
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 01:13:49AM -0600, Jimmy Hess wrote: Perhaps the RIRs should personally and directly ask each /8 legacy holder to provide account of their utilization (which portions of the allocation is used, how many hosts), and ASK for each unused /22 [or shorter] to be returned. And then they (read: their attorneys) fire back a okay, who are you, and why do you have the right to ask us this question? Or they cheerfully engage in some vigorous handwaving. Most of us living in a dual stack world really do not need any more prefixes advertised, so cutting a bunch of discrete /22s out of a /8 is not helpful. The only people this benefits are the very few that might get some of the space. Even in the best possible situation (an entire /8 returned,) which they'd be under NO obligation to consider doing -- it'd last a few weeks. Under your scenario, you might scrounge together enough /22s to last an RIR a couple of days. Then what? That's an awful lot of pain for not much benefit. Can we move on and stop trying to squeeze prefixes from legacy holders? What's done is done. --msa
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On Feb 10, 2011, at 3:13 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote: Perhaps the RIRs should personally and directly ask each /8 legacy holder to provide account of their utilization (which portions of the allocation is used, how many hosts), and ASK for each unused /22 [or shorter] to be returned. I've done close: contacted each one, explained the situation, and asked for whatever resources they can return to please return. This has yielded results. I have not asked for an account of their utilization. The legacy holders might (or might not) refuse. They might (or might not) tell the RIRs Hell no In any case, the registry should ASK and publish an indication for each legacy /8 at least. I asked them all. Some have been returned, some are in progress, some are opted to hold them to be monetized via the Specified Transfer policy. So the community will know which (if any) legacy /8 holders are likely to be returning the community's IPv4 addresses that they obtained but don't have need for. There is likely to be another fractional /8 being returned, but not much more. The community should also know which /8 legacy holders say Hell no, we're keeping all our /8s, and not telling you how much of the community's IPv4 resources we're actually using. As I did not explain in advance to each to the parties that their responses would be public, it would not be proper to publicly post the information. Discussions with individual resource holders is treated as confidential information. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On 2/10/2011 6:07 PM, John Curran wrote: As I did not explain in advance to each to the parties that their responses would be public, it would not be proper to publicly post the information. Discussions with individual resource holders is treated as confidential information. Since you have gone through the process before. It would be nice (especially concerning the DoD networks) if you could ask if they plan to keep them (not monetize) and if you could make such a statement publicly. I mention this, as DoD is most common bogons utilized by people who need to steal IP addressing. Locking in a statement that there is no intention to ever sell, transfer, or return those blocks would ease possible concerns on using them. As a side effect, it also kills any need of any proposals in various institutions to reserve virgin space for utilization of LSN and such. Jack
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On 2/10/2011 8:10 PM, Jack Bates wrote: As a side effect, it also kills any need of any proposals in various institutions to reserve virgin space for utilization of LSN and such. It might not be too far fetched that they might even endorse us reusing their addressing with permission for such private, non-routed purposes. Jack
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On Feb 10, 2011, at 10:10 PM, Jack Bates wrote: Since you have gone through the process before. It would be nice (especially concerning the DoD networks) if you could ask if they plan to keep them (not monetize) and if you could make such a statement publicly. I mention this, as DoD is most common bogons utilized by people who need to steal IP addressing. Locking in a statement that there is no intention to ever sell, transfer, or return those blocks would ease possible concerns on using them. I'm not certain that you could rely on any organizations statements made today to provide any assurance that circumstances would not change in the future and result in the address space being returned to ARIN or transferred per current policy. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On 2/10/2011 8:15 PM, John Curran wrote: I'm not certain that you could rely on any organizations statements made today to provide any assurance that circumstances would not change in the future and result in the address space being returned to ARIN or transferred per current policy. An official statement from the DoD? I'm sure we could hold them to it as a community. Is it too much for us to ask the US government to give us assurance that we can safely utilize huge chunks of address space assigned to them for purposes such as LSN without fear? :) Jack
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On Feb 10, 2011, at 10:31 PM, Jack Bates wrote: On 2/10/2011 8:15 PM, John Curran wrote: I'm not certain that you could rely on any organizations statements made today to provide any assurance that circumstances would not change in the future and result in the address space being returned to ARIN or transferred per current policy. An official statement from the DoD? I'm sure we could hold them to it as a community. Is it too much for us to ask the US government to give us assurance that we can safely utilize huge chunks of address space assigned to them for purposes such as LSN without fear? :) In organizations of all sizes, positions and policies change, with revised statements as a result. One thing that does not change, however, is contractual commitments, and in this one case I can state that there is a commitment to return IPv4 address blocks to ARIN for reuse by the community if they no longer needed. If you'd like to reserve a large block for purposes of LSN without any concern of future address conflict, it would be best to actually reserve it via community-developed policy. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On 2/10/2011 8:44 PM, John Curran wrote: If you'd like to reserve a large block for purposes of LSN without any concern of future address conflict, it would be best to actually reserve it via community-developed policy. When there are X /8 networks reserved by the USG, it seems extremely wasteful to reserve from what little space we have a large block dedicated to LSN when the USG can give assurances that 1) We won't route this, so use it 2) We won't be giving it back or allocating it to someone else where it might be routed. All proposals concerning reserving a /8 of unallocated space for LSN purposes was seen as obscene, and many proposals compromised with a /10, which some feel is too small. I don't think it would hurt for someone with appropriate connections to ask the USG on the matter. It is, after all, in the USG's interest and doesn't conflict with their current practices. Many don't consider it a concern (shown by wide use of DoD space already deployed), yet some do apparently have concern since there has been multiple requests for a new allocation for LSN purposes (in the IETF and in RIRs). Jack
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On Feb 10, 2011, at 9:44 PM, John Curran wrote: On Feb 10, 2011, at 10:31 PM, Jack Bates wrote: On 2/10/2011 8:15 PM, John Curran wrote: I'm not certain that you could rely on any organizations statements made today to provide any assurance that circumstances would not change in the future and result in the address space being returned to ARIN or transferred per current policy. An official statement from the DoD? I'm sure we could hold them to it as a community. Is it too much for us to ask the US government to give us assurance that we can safely utilize huge chunks of address space assigned to them for purposes such as LSN without fear? :) In organizations of all sizes, positions and policies change, with revised statements as a result. One thing that does not change, however, is contractual commitments, and in this one case I can state that there is a commitment to return IPv4 address blocks to ARIN for reuse by the community if they no longer needed. If you'd like to reserve a large block for purposes of LSN without any concern of future address conflict, it would be best to actually reserve it via community-developed policy. I would have to say I agree. Anything short of a posting in the federal register is just a statement of the short-term future. US Gov 201: The federal register from the GPO is the primary source of rule making and RFI the government will use prior to regulation that is not purely legislative. It may be worthwhile to subscribe, or periodically read/search. - Jared
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On Feb 10, 2011, at 9:54 PM, Jack Bates wrote: On 2/10/2011 8:44 PM, John Curran wrote: If you'd like to reserve a large block for purposes of LSN without any concern of future address conflict, it would be best to actually reserve it via community-developed policy. When there are X /8 networks reserved by the USG, it seems extremely wasteful to reserve from what little space we have a large block dedicated to LSN when the USG can give assurances that 1) We won't route this, so use it 2) We won't be giving it back or allocating it to someone else where it might be routed. All proposals concerning reserving a /8 of unallocated space for LSN purposes was seen as obscene, and many proposals compromised with a /10, which some feel is too small. I don't think it would hurt for someone with appropriate connections to ask the USG on the matter. It is, after all, in the USG's interest and doesn't conflict with their current practices. Many don't consider it a concern (shown by wide use of DoD space already deployed), yet some do apparently have concern since there has been multiple requests for a new allocation for LSN purposes (in the IETF and in RIRs). Jack, I was explaining to my wife today how it felt like the nanog list went to 3x the typical mail volume recently with all the IPv6 stuff this month. Why the pro-IPv6 crowd was happy, the anti-IPv6 crowd is groaning (including those that truly despise the whole thing, etc..) I honestly think that the LSN situations won't be as bad as some of us think. The big carriers have already been doing some flavor of this with their cellular/data networks. Doing this on some of the consumer networks will likely not be that much pain. Obviously the pain will vary per subscriber/home. I think despite everyones dislike, distaste and wish that the IPv6 situation didn't smell quite as bad as it does, we're certainly stuck with it. I don't see anyone deploying a new solution anytime soon, and it having broad market acceptance/coding. Many of us wish that IPv6 didn't have a lot of unecessary/ugly stuff. I wish that the network situation wasn't as ugly, but none of this will make it so. We will have to continue to improve and augment the autoconf, dhcpv6, etc environment. The existing hosts need to be fixed (eg: my laptop won't do ipv6 over pptp/vpn properly without a hack), etc.. IPv4 is dead in my opinion. Not dead as in useless, but to the point where I don't think there is value in spending a lot of time worrying about the v4 side of the world when so much needs to be fixed in IPv6 land. Please make sure you list IPv6 *first* in your RFPs, and the IPv4 capabilities under the 'legacy protocols' for 2011. If we're truly going to have the promise of the Internet, we need these market forces to drive the carriers and SME/Prosumer markets to lead the way for the grandparents to still get to their Google, Bing et al, and not just those of us who know there will be an IPv6 day and have our mailboxes filled with IPv6 spam this month. - Jared
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On Feb 10, 2011, at 10:54 PM, Jack Bates wrote: When there are X /8 networks reserved by the USG, it seems extremely wasteful to reserve from what little space we have a large block dedicated to LSN when the USG can give assurances that 1) We won't route this, so use it 2) We won't be giving it back or allocating it to someone else where it might be routed. All proposals concerning reserving a /8 of unallocated space for LSN purposes was seen as obscene, and many proposals compromised with a /10, which some feel is too small. I don't think it would hurt for someone with appropriate connections to ask the USG on the matter. It is, after all, in the USG's interest and doesn't conflict with their current practices. Many don't consider it a concern (shown by wide use of DoD space already deployed), yet some do apparently have concern since there has been multiple requests for a new allocation for LSN purposes (in the IETF and in RIRs). Indeed, that does sound simple. Obtaining such a commitment may prove to be a little more difficult, since it permanently encumbers use of one or more address blocks. I am happy to ask, however, if there is a strong level of support to do so. Alternatively, there is valid contact information listed in WHOIS for US DOD and other commercial /8 address block holders if you wish to ask one directly. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN p.s. Considering that we've collectively allocated the 95%+ of the address space which was made available outside of DoD's original blocks, and the DoD additionally returned 2 more /8's for the community (noted here: http://blog.icann.org/2008/02/recovering-ipv4-address-space/), they may actually have a different perspective us coming back to impair some of the remaining space they still hold. I'm happy to discuss it, but wanted to point out the long history and potential different perspective.
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On 2/10/2011 9:11 PM, Jared Mauch wrote: I was explaining to my wife today how it felt like the nanog list went to 3x the typical mail volume recently with all the IPv6 stuff this month. Why the pro-IPv6 crowd was happy, the anti-IPv6 crowd is groaning (including those that truly despise the whole thing, etc..) I was having fun discussing with my wife how ARIN stuff ended up on NANOG, NANOG stuff ended up on PPML, and I've been listening and participating in debates concerning IPv6 and CGN (apparently BEHAVE WG adopted CGN over LSN) on 4 different mailing lists. To be honest, though. I'm pro-IPv6, but I'm not happy. Anyone who is happy doesn't care about those innocent people who are ignorant of what is going on and why. I honestly think that the LSN situations won't be as bad as some of us think. The big carriers have already been doing some flavor of this with their cellular/data networks. Doing this on some of the consumer networks will likely not be that much pain. Obviously the pain will vary per subscriber/home. snip lots of good stuff I agree with IPv4 is dead in my opinion. Not dead as in useless, but to the point where I don't think there is value in spending a lot of time worrying about the v4 side of the world when so much needs to be fixed in IPv6 land. Service requirements in cellular networks are considerably different than wireline. Apparently, most cell customers don't hook a CPE router into their cell network and play their game consoles over it, along with many other situations. This actually means that most often, they are running a single stage NAT44 LSN (which still breaks stuff, but most of the things it would break aren't normally transiting the cellular networks). snip more good stuff I agree with I agree. However, because the largest networks and corporations decided (and some still do) to wait until the last moment to deal with IPv6, we will have to deal with IPv4 in much worse conditions. I know that there are large cellular networks which use DoD bogons behind huge LSN implementations. I know that some networks apparently aren't happy with using DoD bogons and would like to waste even more space. The best solution for such a case (and to solve all arguments on the matter) is to secure assurances on the bogons so that they can be safely used. Jack
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Thu Feb 10 20:35:01 2011 Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 20:31:32 -0600 From: Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net To: John Curran jcur...@arin.net Subject: Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers Cc: NANOG na...@merit.edu On 2/10/2011 8:15 PM, John Curran wrote: I'm not certain that you could rely on any organizations statements made today to provide any assurance that circumstances would not change in the future and result in the address space being returned to ARIN or transferred per current policy. An official statement from the DoD? I'm sure we could hold them to it as a community. Is it too much for us to ask the US government to give us assurance that we can safely utilize huge chunks of address space assigned to them for purposes such as LSN without fear? :) Even the DoD cannot say for sure that they would never route some of that space 'in time of need' over the public internet.
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
In message 78697910-f7a6-4d53-ad93-377fce660...@arin.net, John Curran writes: On Feb 10, 2011, at 10:31 PM, Jack Bates wrote: On 2/10/2011 8:15 PM, John Curran wrote: I'm not certain that you could rely on any organizations statements made= today to provide any assurance that circumstances would not change in the futu= re and result in the address space being returned to ARIN or transferred per cu= rrent policy. =20 An official statement from the DoD? I'm sure we could hold them to it as = a community. Is it too much for us to ask the US government to give us assu= rance that we can safely utilize huge chunks of address space assigned to t= hem for purposes such as LSN without fear? :) In organizations of all sizes, positions and policies change,=20 with revised statements as a result. One thing that does not change, however, is contractual commitments, and in this one case I can state that there is a commitment to return IPv4=20 address blocks to ARIN for reuse by the community if they no=20 longer needed. If you'd like to reserve a large block for purposes of LSN=20 without any concern of future address conflict, it would be=20 best to actually reserve it via community-developed policy. The first half of Class E would work. There are 134+ million addresses there and you only have to be able to route it between the CPE and the LSN / 6rd BR. The CPE signals that it support Class E (DHCP/PPP option) and the ISP only assigns a address from the block if it knows the path is Class E clean. Anyone that can't work with double NAT would clear the option and it would be on by default. It should be possible to patch all existing CPE devices to support this without flash memory constraints. The same can't be said for upgrading then to support IPv6. It does require the whole world to upgrade to be useful. It can be done incrementally. It will significiantly reduce the remaining IPv4 consumption rate. Those CPE's that turn on 6to4 automatically now have another well known address range where it is known not to work. It doesn't clash with address ranges already in use by customers. It can be used with 6rd so that IPv6 can be deployed over it for ISP's that have boxes that can't be upgraded to IPv6. It gives them a little more breathing room. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On 2/10/11 6:54 PM, Jack Bates wrote: On 2/10/2011 8:44 PM, John Curran wrote: If you'd like to reserve a large block for purposes of LSN without any concern of future address conflict, it would be best to actually reserve it via community-developed policy. When there are X /8 networks reserved by the USG, it seems extremely wasteful to reserve from what little space we have a large block dedicated to LSN when the USG can give assurances that reserved and assigned are different. The prefixes are assigned. 1) We won't route this, so use it 2) We won't be giving it back or allocating it to someone else where it might be routed. All proposals concerning reserving a /8 of unallocated space for LSN purposes was seen as obscene, and many proposals compromised with a /10, which some feel is too small. I don't think it would hurt for someone with appropriate connections to ask the USG on the matter. It is, after all, in the USG's interest and doesn't conflict with their current practices. Many don't consider it a concern (shown by wide use of DoD space already deployed), yet some do apparently have concern since there has been multiple requests for a new allocation for LSN purposes (in the IETF and in RIRs). Jack
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
David Conrad d...@virtualized.org writes: I'm curious: when HP acquired the assets of Compaq (or when Compaq acquired the assets of Digital), is it your position that HP (or Compaq) met the same criteria as if they were requesting an IP address directly from the IR. for 16.0.0.0/8? since i was the guy to do the initial carving on 16.0.0.0/8 i pondered this at the time of the CPQ and HP acquisitions. my research revealed that the network that DEC had numbered using 16.0.0.0/8 was still in existence and had been part of the acquisition process. there's an interesting question as to whether the acquirer should have had to renumber, since the acquirer had their own /8 and probably had the ability to contain both the old and new networks in the same /8. there's another interesting question as to whether either DEC or HP could have qualified for a /8 under current rules, since the basis for these (pre-RIR) allocations was that they needed more than a /16 and these were the days before CIDR. (at the time i received the /8 allocation at DEC, we had a half dozen /16's several dozen /24's that we wanted to stop using because we worried about the size of the global routing table... what whacky kids we all were. hint: i had hair back then.) -- Paul Vixie KI6YSY
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Paul Vixie vi...@isc.org wrote: David Conrad d...@virtualized.org writes: whether either DEC or HP could have qualified for a /8 under current rules, since the basis for these (pre-RIR) allocations was that they needed more than a /16 and these were the days before CIDR. (at the time i received the /8 allocation at DEC, we had a half dozen /16's several dozen /24's that With them not requiring a /8 in the first place (after CIDR); one begins to wonder how much of their /8 allocations they actually touched in any meaningful way. Perhaps the RIRs should personally and directly ask each /8 legacy holder to provide account of their utilization (which portions of the allocation is used, how many hosts), and ASK for each unused /22 [or shorter] to be returned. The legacy holders might (or might not) refuse. They might (or might not) tell the RIRs Hell no In any case, the registry should ASK and publish an indication for each legacy /8 at least. So the community will know which (if any) legacy /8 holders are likely to be returning the community's IPv4 addresses that they obtained but don't have need for. The community should also know which /8 legacy holders say Hell no, we're keeping all our /8s, and not telling you how much of the community's IPv4 resources we're actually using. -- -JH
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On Feb 9, 2011, at 11:13 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Paul Vixie vi...@isc.org wrote: David Conrad d...@virtualized.org writes: whether either DEC or HP could have qualified for a /8 under current rules, since the basis for these (pre-RIR) allocations was that they needed more than a /16 and these were the days before CIDR. (at the time i received the /8 allocation at DEC, we had a half dozen /16's several dozen /24's that With them not requiring a /8 in the first place (after CIDR); one begins to wonder how much of their /8 allocations they actually touched in any meaningful way. Perhaps the RIRs should personally and directly ask each /8 legacy holder to provide account of their utilization (which portions of the allocation is used, how many hosts), and ASK for each unused /22 [or shorter] to be returned. The legacy holders might (or might not) refuse. They might (or might not) tell the RIRs Hell no In any case, the registry should ASK and publish an indication for each legacy /8 at least. That depends on whether you want honest answers from the legacy holders or a blanket We're using the space, move along, these aren't the droids you're looking for. If the RIRs are going to ask, they RIRs should be able to keep the data and provide generalized statistics, or, at least each organization should have the option of opting in to any identifying statistics. Otherwise, you create an incredible motivation for organizations to simply stonewall the RIRs and refuse to tell them anything. So the community will know which (if any) legacy /8 holders are likely to be returning the community's IPv4 addresses that they obtained but don't have need for. If they are inclined to return anything, the community will find out what is returned soon enough. There's no real gain to this witch hunt other than feeling like you put pressure on legacy holders to do what you think is the right thing. It may create some small amount of personal satisfaction, but, it won't actually help get addresses freed up. In fact, I think it would be counter-productive. The community should also know which /8 legacy holders say Hell no, we're keeping all our /8s, and not telling you how much of the community's IPv4 resources we're actually using. Yeah, this is a sure path to having all of them say exactly that in unison. Do you want to be right? Or would you prefer to be effective? Owen
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
So, what exactly is broken and needs to be changed? the policy making process. we have created a minor industry in telling other people how to run their network. how about no more ipv4 policy proposals and charge $1,000 to file an ipv6 policy proposal? randy
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
All this talk of ARIN's power and rights versus others is rather despairing. I will now explain what we, a 'non-connectivity' ISP, are providing as useful service. Many of customers value anonymity/pseudonymity. We can provide these things. Sure, there is a great potential for abuse, but we take steps to prevent this, such as careful control over port 25. Our customers can appear on the net from one of several IPv4 addresses in various places, which can be used for testing location-based services. Yes, this could be abused. We can aggregate broadband connections at our router, or provide instant switchover. This is useful for various people and organizations which have to use low-grade broadband (consumer quality, or often consumer quality relabeled 'business' and sold at a higher price). We find a way for people to use their legacy space. A few hobbyist types with their legacy Class Cs are customers. We've managed to get around some censorship blocks. Private http proxies to facebook/youtube and other less-known sites have an IP in some of our space. This is not saying these named organizations are our customers (nor am I saying they are not). We remain quiet at the moment because we do not have the infrastructure in place to handle any more traffic than the people who have found out about us by word-of-mouth. Maintaining a low profile also allows us to escape being added to lists of those censors of one type or another. It has allowed us to avoid spammers, thieves and crackers as customers I hope that many of you will see our use of IP space as a legitimate one. Like many of the rest of you, we provide services which may be valuable to spammers/crackers, but this doesn't mean we're in bed with them. If ARIN/RIPE etc ever decide to edit their databases in a way that interferes with our valuable services, I hope that some of you will raise an alarm in our defense.
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On Feb 7, 2011, at 10:25 AM, Randy Bush wrote: So, what exactly is broken and needs to be changed? the policy making process. we have created a minor industry in telling other people how to run their network. how about no more ipv4 policy proposals and charge $1,000 to file an ipv6 policy proposal? randy If you believe this is a good idea, submit it to ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process. If not, then I'm willing to bet you could actually find something more constructive to do than making comments like this. Owen
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On Feb 6, 2011, at 2:16 PM, David Conrad wrote: As you're aware, RFC 2050 was a group effort, so focusing on Jon's intent seems questionable particularly given he sadly isn't around to provide corrections. While it may have been a group effort, Jon was the IANA. With regards to specific language, you reference section 2.1.1. You'll note that this is in a section talking about guidelines for how ISPs should deal with address space. It is saying ISPs should treat assignments to their customers like loans. Section 2.1.3 is talking about two different things as indicated by the terminology used. The future _allocations_ may be impacted is talking about allocations made from the RIR to the ISP. The existing _loans_ may be impacted is saying the RIR could ignore assignments the ISP has made to its customers (making it a bit difficult for the ISP to get new space). Interesting viewpoint in separating the two, as the full context is: If the information is not available, future allocations may be impacted. In extreme cases, existing loans may be impacted. Your suggestion that existing loans may be impacted means to be ignored for evaluating future allocations does seems a bit superfluous when taken in full context, but obviously must be considered as you are one of the authors. One wonders why it just doesn't repeat future allocations may be impacted for the second sentence. Do you have any similar suggestions for how to reinterpret the transfer section, i.e. The transfer of IP addresses from one party to another must be approved by the regional registries. or 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. ? So, if you believe ARIN policy applies to all space, you're saying that ARIN at one time violated the section of RFC 2050 you quoted and that later, ARIN changed that policy. This sort of policy evolution is exactly what was envisioned when we wrote RFC 2050. We assumed policies would change over time, and as such RFC 2050 was merely documenting the current practice as it was in 1996. This is why I always find your referencing 2050 as if it is sacred text curious. It's fairly difficult to have a consistent global registry framework that the regional registries operate under unless its actually followed by the regional registries. What would have been best would have been to separate the document into two; one for the overall Internet Registry requirements technically necessary, and then one with the current view on appropriate allocation policy. I wasn't there, so I can't say why the two are combined. In the particular instance you point out, I'm happy to say ARIN is back in alignment with RFC 2050 as written. In thinking about this, since RFC 2050 was focused on IPv4 allocation policy and there is no more IPv4 to allocate, 2050 should probably be moved to historic. It certainly would be worth considering revising to maintain the portions which are an inherent technical requirements from IAB/IETF versus those which are a snapshot of registry policy at the time. It also is interesting to consider which forum(s) such an activity should take place in, since it's clear that an overall framework is necessary for the system to keep working globally. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On Feb 6, 2011, at 9:53 AM, John Curran wrote: Your suggestion that existing loans may be impacted means to be ignored for evaluating future allocations does seems a bit superfluous when taken in full context, but obviously must be considered as you are one of the authors. I believe (it has been 15 years after all) the idea was that if an ISP didn't update the registry with new assignments, the RIR could in extreme cases remove previously submitted reassignment information as punishment (the theory being that this would cause the ISP's customers to take action). Again, this wording is in a section that is discussing sub-delegation guidelines for ISPs who received an allocation from the RIRs. How are you reinterpreting section 2.1.3? Do you have any similar suggestions for how to reinterpret the transfer section, i.e. The transfer of IP addresses from one party to another must be approved by the regional registries. or 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. ? As opposed to section 2, section 4.7 seems pretty unambiguous to me: it was an attempt by the registries at the time to conserve the remaining IPv4 free pool by disallowing the bypassing of registry allocation restrictions. Do you reinterpret it differently? It certainly would be worth considering revising to maintain the portions which are an inherent technical requirements from IAB/IETF versus those which are a snapshot of registry policy at the time. I hear Mark McFadden, since he hated his life, was working on 2050bis... :-) More seriously, RFC 2050 was an attempt to document the then current (in 1996) practices for allocating IPv4 addresses. Instead of revising that 15 year old document, I'd think a document that describes the role and responsibilities of the registries in a post-IPv4 free pool world would be much more valuable. My impression is that there is a bit of a disconnect between the folks who go to RIR meetings and the folks who have IP addresses (particularly those folks who received their addresses prior to the existence of the RIRs). Might be useful to remedy this. It also is interesting to consider which forum(s) such an activity should take place in, since it's clear that an overall framework is necessary for the system to keep working globally. Yeah, too bad no one set up an organization whose By-Laws and Mission is to coordinate, at an overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers capable of providing such a forum. Regards, -drc
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
it is both amusing and horrifying to watch two old dogs argue about details of written rules as if common sense had died in october 1998. what is good for the internet? what is simple? what is pragmatic? if the answer is not simple and obvious, we should go break something else. randy
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On Feb 6, 2011, at 7:51 PM, Randy Bush wrote: it is both amusing and horrifying to watch two old dogs argue about details of written rules as if common sense had died in october 1998. what is good for the internet? what is simple? what is pragmatic? if the answer is not simple and obvious, we should go break something else. Actually, I'm in full agreement with you: the goal needs to be to keep the Internet running. Alas, I've run a few networks, but that's a few years back, and I'll be the first to admit that my particular graybeard views on what is best for the Internet lacks current operational insights. Also note that, as CEO of ARIN, it is not my role to preempt discussion by proposing solutions, but instead to encourage good discussion of the issues. So, what exactly is broken and needs to be changed? I do know that we can't have the basic premises of the system completely set on a regional basis, but we also have to allow for regional differences in policy since operators face different challenges. While the discussion is ongoing, we're keeping to the principles of aggregation, conservation, and registration, and looking forward to any consensus that emerges from the operator community to change these principles. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 04:51:26PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote: it is both amusing and horrifying to watch two old dogs argue about details of written rules as if common sense had died in october 1998. what is good for the internet? what is simple? what is pragmatic? if the answer is not simple and obvious, we should go break something else. Randy, I'll bite. I'll take Who cares? Let's keep on' keepin' on... for $200. Deck chairs indeed. --msa
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers (was: Re: And so it ends... )
On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 04:54:42PM +, John Curran wrote: On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Jon Lewis wrote: My point being, the leasing of IP space to non-connectivity customers is already well established, whether it's technically permitted by the [ir]relevant RIRs. I fully expect this to continue and spread. Eventually, holders of large legacy blocks will realize they can make good money acting as an LIR, leasing portions of their unused space to people who need it and can't get it, want it and don't qualify, etc. These start-up LIRs won't be bound by RIR policies, both because in some cases they'll be legacy space holders with no RSA with their region's RIR, and because they won't be worried about eligibility for future RIR allocations of v4 space...because there won't be any. For the ARIN region, it would be nice to know how you'd like ARIN perform in the presence of such activity (leasing IP addresses by ISP not providing connectivity). It's possible that such is perfectly reasonable and to simply be ignored, it's also possible that such should be considered a fraudulent transfer and the resources reclaimed. At the end of the day, the policy is set by this community, and clarity over ambiguity is very helpful. Policy proposal process: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN the practice predates ARIN by many years... FWIW... --bill
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On Feb 5, 2011, at 5:57 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: For the ARIN region, it would be nice to know how you'd like ARIN perform in the presence of such activity (leasing IP addresses by ISP not providing connectivity). It's possible that such is perfectly reasonable and to simply be ignored, it's also possible that such should be considered a fraudulent transfer and the resources reclaimed. At the end of the day, the policy is set by this community, and clarity over ambiguity is very helpful. ... the practice predates ARIN by many years... FWIW... Good to know; it makes its omission from RFC2050 even more significant and highlights the need for clear policy in this area. Ultimately, the question is simply how the operator community wishes to have this treated, and there should be alignment between that consensus and the number resource policy. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 12:40:44PM +, John Curran wrote: On Feb 5, 2011, at 5:57 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: For the ARIN region, it would be nice to know how you'd like ARIN perform in the presence of such activity (leasing IP addresses by ISP not providing connectivity). It's possible that such is perfectly reasonable and to simply be ignored, it's also possible that such should be considered a fraudulent transfer and the resources reclaimed. At the end of the day, the policy is set by this community, and clarity over ambiguity is very helpful. ... the practice predates ARIN by many years... FWIW... Good to know; it makes its omission from RFC2050 even more significant and highlights the need for clear policy in this area. Ultimately, the question is simply how the operator community wishes to have this treated, and there should be alignment between that consensus and the number resource policy. /John as you pointed out back in oh, IETF-29, actual network operators don't participate much in the standards setting process so its no wonder RFC 2050 has (several) blind-spots when it comes to operational reality. and pragmatically, I am not sure that one could come to a single consistent suite of polciy for management of number resource. there's just too many ways (some conflicting) to use them. but this might be a sigma-six outlying POV. ARIN's community certinly is dominated by a particular type of network operator. --bill
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: as you pointed out back in oh, IETF-29, actual network operators don't participate much in the standards setting process so its no wonder RFC 2050 has (several) blind-spots when it comes to operational reality. and pragmatically, I am not sure that one could come to a single consistent suite of polciy for management of number resource. there's just too many ways (some conflicting) to use them. but this might be a sigma-six outlying POV. ARIN's community certinly is dominated by a particular type of network operator. To the extent that the operator community does not participate in the open standards setting process in the IETF, and also opts not to participate in the open policy development process in the Regional Internet Registries, it is indeed challenging to make sure that the outcomes meet any operational reality. Since the results are useless for everyone if they don't work for the operator community, there is obviously pressure to try to fairly consider those needs as best understood, but it takes good inputs into the system somewhere if we want reasonable outcomes. (my humble opinion alone) /John
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On Feb 5, 2011, at 12:24 PM, John Curran wrote: On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: as you pointed out back in oh, IETF-29, actual network operators don't participate much in the standards setting process so its no wonder RFC 2050 has (several) blind-spots when it comes to operational reality. and pragmatically, I am not sure that one could come to a single consistent suite of polciy for management of number resource. there's just too many ways (some conflicting) to use them. but this might be a sigma-six outlying POV. ARIN's community certinly is dominated by a particular type of network operator. To the extent that the operator community does not participate in the open standards setting process in the IETF, and also opts not to participate in the open policy development process in the Regional Internet Registries, it is indeed challenging to make sure that the outcomes meet any operational reality. In fairness, Operators are ruled by business needs. Convincing management that we should spend money, time, and effort to change a process which _may_ have some relevance to the bottom line in some very obtuse (and completely unrelated - by accounting standards) way is difficult at best. Add to that the fact most companies are squeezing their employees for every possible efficiency, and even spending your own time on it becomes difficult. Despite all that, I agree it is difficult for the process to take operators' PoV into account if no operator is giving input. Since the results are useless for everyone if they don't work for the operator community, there is obviously pressure to try to fairly consider those needs as best understood, but it takes good inputs into the system somewhere if we want reasonable outcomes. We appreciate that. And let's hope the operators will make some attempt at being more involved in the process. (Guess I'll have to subscribe to PPML now, which I have been avoiding like the plague for years.) -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers (was: Re: And so it ends... )
the practice predates ARIN by many years... FWIW... No reason to play coy... (ep.net) --bill
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: ARIN's community certinly is dominated by a particular type of network operator. It's dominated by the type of network operator who shows up and participates. Generally, I hear what you're saying and don't disagree, but this is one of those truisms that applies across the whole spectrum of Internet governance: constrained-resource allocation, protocol definition, route and capacity forecasting, carrier interconnect, what-have-you. It's the people who sit back and say that someone else is doing it who don't get represented and don't get their way. So while I absolutely recognize the phenomenon you're describing and wish it were otherwise, the solution is action, not complaint. -Bill -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAk1NlDkACgkQGvQy4xTRsBF6KACfe+xqvrt8ikLIJme99rLYT1OZ tQYAoJ+VsUMsui5W6ss++aOXOPEqqoRh =Cruc -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 12:24:01PM -0500, John Curran wrote: On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: as you pointed out back in oh, IETF-29, actual network operators don't participate much in the standards setting process so its no wonder RFC 2050 has (several) blind-spots when it comes to operational reality. and pragmatically, I am not sure that one could come to a single consistent suite of polciy for management of number resource. there's just too many ways (some conflicting) to use them. but this might be a sigma-six outlying POV. ARIN's community certinly is dominated by a particular type of network operator. To the extent that the operator community does not participate in the open standards setting process in the IETF, and also opts not to participate in the open policy development process in the Regional Internet Registries, it is indeed challenging to make sure that the outcomes meet any operational reality. Since the results are useless for everyone if they don't work for the operator community, there is obviously pressure to try to fairly consider those needs as best understood, but it takes good inputs into the system somewhere if we want reasonable outcomes. (my humble opinion alone) /John yeah... we are sharing opinions here.. :) the only analogy i can draw here is one of land-grant vs eminent-domain in the real estate world. in the case where an entity recevied an allocation at some point (being justified under then then current policy) it is going to take a bit of work to justify expropriation just 'cause the policy has changed... unless of course the RIR is willing to pay the fair market value to the holder to reclaim the space. this report suggests that the question is not RIR specific. http://ciara.fiu.edu/publications/Rubi%20-%20Property%20Rights%20in%20IP%20Numbers.pdf but thats just me. --bill
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 10:17:29AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: ARIN's community certinly is dominated by a particular type of network operator. It's dominated by the type of network operator who shows up and participates. Generally, I hear what you're saying and don't disagree, but this is one of those truisms that applies across the whole spectrum of Internet governance: constrained-resource allocation, protocol definition, route and capacity forecasting, carrier interconnect, what-have-you. It's the people who sit back and say that someone else is doing it who don't get represented and don't get their way. So while I absolutely recognize the phenomenon you're describing and wish it were otherwise, the solution is action, not complaint. -Bill there is no complaint here bill. there is simply the observation that if I justified an allocation 20 years ago, under the then current policy, that it is, at best, presumptious to presume the power of expropriation without taking into account the doctrine of eminent domain. If the RIR's and there active members want to take my right to use space away - I expect to be compensated at fair market value. I'm pretty sure that those arguments are going to be tested in the courts ... --bill
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On Feb 5, 2011, at 1:18 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: this report suggests that the question is not RIR specific. http://ciara.fiu.edu/publications/Rubi%20-%20Property%20Rights%20in%20IP%20Numbers.pdf but thats just me. FYI - Also remember to consider the views from papers that have actually been peer-reviewed and published (attached)... /John Legal And Policy Aspects Of Internet Number Resources Santa Clara Computer High Technology Law Journal. Volume 24 Issue 2 Page 335 Authors: Stephen M. Ryan, Esq. , Raymond A. Plzak , and John Curran http://www.chtlj.org/sites/default/files/media/articles/v024/v024.i2.Ryan.pdf
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On Feb 5, 2011, at 1:27 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 10:17:29AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote: ... It's dominated by the type of network operator who shows up and participates. Generally, I hear what you're saying and don't disagree, but this is one of those truisms that applies across the whole spectrum of Internet governance: constrained-resource allocation, protocol definition, route and capacity forecasting, carrier interconnect, what-have-you. It's the people who sit back and say that someone else is doing it who don't get represented and don't get their way. So while I absolutely recognize the phenomenon you're describing and wish it were otherwise, the solution is action, not complaint. -Bill there is no complaint here bill. there is simply the observation that if I justified an allocation 20 years ago, under the then current policy, that it is, at best, presumptious to presume the power of expropriation without taking into account the doctrine of eminent domain. If the RIR's and there active members want to take my right to use space away - I expect to be compensated at fair market value. ... Bill - That seems like a particularly strong reason on your part to participate in the policy development process. I happen to believe that the community needs to be particularly respectful of the ability of all address holders to use their space undisturbed, but at the end of the day we have to run according to whatever policies the community develops. /John
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:27 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: If I justified an allocation 20 years ago, under the then current policy, it's presumptuous to presume the power of expropriation. No one presumes it, and a lot of us are in the same boat as you, some of the addresses we're using predating the RIR system. That said, there will always be people who will turn up on the mailing list, participating in the public policy process, who are not in that boat, and whose interests differ significantly, and who will speak in favor of those interests. And the consensus of the public, the people who participate in the public policy process, is what decides If the RIR's and there active members want to take my right to use space away... This is hyperbole. The RIRs are not people, they have no desires, other perhaps than that of self-perpetuation. I haven't heard _anyone_, active RIR member or otherwise, suggest that a right to _use_ space should be rescinded. The only thing I've heard even the most vehement pro-reclamation people argue in favor of is reclamation of _unused_ space. I'm pretty sure that those arguments are going to be tested in the courts. And ultimately, the courts uphold community standards. Which is what the public expects. If the community uses the public policy process to set a standard that you cannot meet, it's very _very_ unlikely that a court would side with you in the long term. The community we live in generally believes that paint shouldn't have lead in it, and cars should have seatbelts, and people shouldn't beat their children when they get frustrated, and although each of those things was deemed a god-given right at one time, the courts would not side with someone who did any of them, anymore. So I think the two questions here are whether you really have a grievance (I don't believe you do, since you haven't described a problem that many of the rest of us wouldn't also face), and if so, whether and how you can better your lot (and I think the answer to that is to participate in the public policy process and help establish community norms that you're comfortable with, rather than hoping that a court will buck the tide). -Bill -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAk1NnmwACgkQGvQy4xTRsBHqBACdG/EB0mn2C/kd7tANzBVpBUbG EO8AoJu0gXNrNy3OMy88dsz10B9cWUUf =jhkb -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 11:01:00AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:27 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: If I justified an allocation 20 years ago, under the then current policy, it's presumptuous to presume the power of expropriation. No one presumes it, and a lot of us are in the same boat as you, some of the addresses we're using predating the RIR system. That said, there will always be people who will turn up on the mailing list, participating in the public policy process, who are not in that boat, and whose interests differ significantly, and who will speak in favor of those interests. yup... said that earlier. And the consensus of the public, the people who participate in the public policy process, is what decides decides current policy. when current policy directly contridicts the policies under which old address space was allocated, which policy trumps? this is where I suspect there will be legal intervention to instruct/enlighten network and rir practice. If the RIR's and there active members want to take my right to use space away... This is hyperbole. The RIRs are not people, they have no desires, other perhaps than that of self-perpetuation. absent people - RIRs are an empty shell... :) right... their v. there... sorry about that. I haven't heard _anyone_, active RIR member or otherwise, suggest that a right to _use_ space should be rescinded. The only thing I've heard even the most vehement pro-reclamation people argue in favor of is reclamation of _unused_ space. definition of used is not particularly clear and rarely has been. the most pragmatic has been ... when a recognized authority has delegated the address space -- when that was Postel, or SRI, or NSI, or ARIN, or Dupont, or Rice University, or PCH, or ep.net... doesn't really matter. it was a recognized authority. when one authority disputes the rights of another, there is really one one venue for resolution... I'm pretty sure that those arguments are going to be tested in the courts. And ultimately, the courts uphold community standards. Which is what the public expects. If the community uses the public policy process to set a standard that you cannot meet, it's very _very_ unlikely that a court would side with you in the long term. The community we live in generally believes that paint shouldn't have lead in it, and cars should have seatbelts, and people shouldn't beat their children when they get frustrated, and although each of those things was deemed a god-given right at one time, the courts would not side with someone who did any of them, anymore. which is where we end up w/ the doctrine of eminent domain. and legacy/historical values do have some recognition in courts... my Ford Model T doesn't have seat belts... :) So I think the two questions here are whether you really have a grievance (I don't believe you do, since you haven't described a problem that many of the rest of us wouldn't also face), and if so, whether and how you can better your lot (and I think the answer to that is to participate in the public policy process and help establish community norms that you're comfortable with, rather than hoping that a court will buck the tide). of course I don't have a grievance... thats your allergic reaction :) as to your point of changing policy - sure, i could do that and i hope people become engaged... HOWEVER - I am not persuaded that a single policy framework will be applicable to all users of IP space... so n matter what current ARIN policy is - its not likely to be an exact match to the number resource policies of DuPont, or DoD, or Ohio State, or Google, or Nintendo, Toyota, PCH, or Bills Bait Sushi. Nor can it ever be. Of course ARIN has every right to maintain its database (whois) in any way that it sees fit and how its members dictate - but unless the rights of all players are acknowledged/respected - I think ARIN is in danger of losing relevence. And that would be a great loss. --bill
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:27 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 10:17:29AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: ARIN's community certinly is dominated by a particular type of network operator. It's dominated by the type of network operator who shows up and participates. Generally, I hear what you're saying and don't disagree, but this is one of those truisms that applies across the whole spectrum of Internet governance: constrained-resource allocation, protocol definition, route and capacity forecasting, carrier interconnect, what-have-you. It's the people who sit back and say that someone else is doing it who don't get represented and don't get their way. So while I absolutely recognize the phenomenon you're describing and wish it were otherwise, the solution is action, not complaint. -Bill there is no complaint here bill. there is simply the observation that if I justified an allocation 20 years ago, under the then current policy, that it is, at best, presumptious to presume the power of expropriation without taking into account the doctrine of eminent domain. If the RIR's and there active members want to take my right to use space away - I expect to be compensated at fair market value. I'm pretty sure that those arguments are going to be tested in the courts ... --bill Bill, The RIRs can't take your right to do anything away, including your right to run a competing registry in which you are the sole recipient of 0.0.0.0/2 if you like. What the RIRs MIGHT do (and note that I would not support such action) is terminate registration services for those that have no contract with the RIR. Once they have done that, they are free to register the uniqueness of numbers previously registered as a free service to those without contracts to others who do have contracts. Whether or not anyone in the outside world makes use of that registration data is a matter of independent decision on the part of each consumer of registration data. Your right to use a particular set of addresses on a particular network is not granted by any RIR. It is granted by the people who run the routers on that network. It is up to the operators of each individual network to choose which network numbers they route and to whom. The fact that a very large number of network operators use the data contained in the RIR system in a cooperative manner is convenient and makes the internet substantially more useful than I can imagine it would be under alternative scenarios. However, that does not mean that the RIRs are granting any sort of license, right to use, or ownership. Nor does it mean that terminating a registration constitutes taking away such a grant that was never given. Owen
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On 2/5/2011 2:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: Your right to use a particular set of addresses on a particular network is not granted by any RIR. It is granted by the people who run the routers on that network. It is up to the operators of each individual network to choose which network numbers they route and to whom. Which would become extremely fun in a conflict case like this, as depending on which network you asked, they could consider either party to be the party that is hijacking the space. Jack
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
Your right to use a particular set of addresses on a particular network is not granted by any RIR. As far as I know, there's no case law about address space assignments. There's been a bunch of cases where someone stole address space by pretending to be the original assignee, like the SF Bay Packet Radio case in 2008, but as far as I know, the ones that have been resolved were resolved without a court's help. There's also plenty of stolen address space still in use by the party that stole it. If there have been cases with a willing seller and a willing buyer where ARIN has refused to update WHOIS or rDNS, I'd be interested to hear about them. R's, John
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On 2/5/2011 5:06 PM, John Levine wrote: If there have been cases with a willing seller and a willing buyer where ARIN has refused to update WHOIS or rDNS, I'd be interested to hear about them. Isn't it moot when you can reallocate the entire block to the other party? Contractual agreements of the sale would enforce the inability to reclaim or remove the reallocation. Jack
RE: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
How can someone steal something from you that you don’t own? From: John Levine [mailto:jo...@iecc.com] Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 5:06 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers Your right to use a particular set of addresses on a particular network is not granted by any RIR. As far as I know, there's no case law about address space assignments. There's been a bunch of cases where someone stole address space by pretending to be the original assignee, like the SF Bay Packet Radio case in 2008, but as far as I know, the ones that have been resolved were resolved without a court's help. There's also plenty of stolen address space still in use by the party that stole it. If there have been cases with a willing seller and a willing buyer where ARIN has refused to update WHOIS or rDNS, I'd be interested to hear about them. R's, John _ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3424 - Release Date: 02/05/11
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
If there have been cases with a willing seller and a willing buyer where ARIN has refused to update WHOIS or rDNS, I'd be interested to hear about them. Isn't it moot when you can reallocate the entire block to the other party? Contractual agreements of the sale would enforce the inability to reclaim or remove the reallocation. If the user doesn't match what's in WHOIS, a lot of people will assume that the block is hijacked. Regards, John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies, Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
In article 0d7e01cbc58a$340347a0$9c09d6e0$@net you write: How can someone steal something from you that you don’t own? Here in the US, until there is statutory or case law, the question of whether the people with legacy IP space assignments own that space is entirely a matter of opinion. I realize a lot of people have made a lot of assertions, but anyone can assert anything. R's, John
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On 2/5/2011 5:25 PM, John R. Levine wrote: Isn't it moot when you can reallocate the entire block to the other party? Contractual agreements of the sale would enforce the inability to reclaim or remove the reallocation. If the user doesn't match what's in WHOIS, a lot of people will assume that the block is hijacked. That's my point. If a legacy holder can update WHOIS, I presume they can also just allocate the entire block to someone else. It would reflect that in WHOIS, no one would consider it hijacked. Jack
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
Hi, On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 17:12:40 -0600 Aaron Wendel aa...@wholesaleinternet.net wrote: How can someone steal something from you that you don’t own? Legacy space. The best example I can think of was Choopa's hijacking of Erie Forge and Steel's legacy space. In this case, it was theft as it was a legacy allocation and therefore owned by EFS. EFS however, did not notice because they were not using the legacy allocation for anything. William
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
Good question: Depends on what kind of address space assignment - if you mean legacy IP space, then no there is no case law. Kremen v. ARIN (Northern District of CA) is the only case law out there, but it is on point only as to 'current' IP space. In Kremen, the district court went only as far as saying that ARIN is the only available source for ‘current’ allocations. The court, in a motion to amend a prior ex parte order, found an applicant seeking IP space “could only receive the number resources if he followed ARIN’s procedures, applied for...the resources, and signed ARIN’s standard Registration Services Agreement in effect when the resources were issued. There is no statutory (federal / state) authority on point; other than: Federal statutory law now makes a felony for anyone to “falsely represent oneself to be the registrant...of 5 or more Internet Protocol addresses, and intentionally initiate the transmission of multiple commercial electronic mail messages from such addresses.” (See 18 U.S.C.A. § 1037(a)(5), (2003)) Compare this to the well established law on domain name transfers (Anti Cybersquatting Protection Act; WIPO Treaties; state and federal cases). Ernie On Feb 5, 2011, at 6:06 PM, John Levine wrote: Your right to use a particular set of addresses on a particular network is not granted by any RIR. As far as I know, there's no case law about address space assignments. There's been a bunch of cases where someone stole address space by pretending to be the original assignee, like the SF Bay Packet Radio case in 2008, but as far as I know, the ones that have been resolved were resolved without a court's help. There's also plenty of stolen address space still in use by the party that stole it. If there have been cases with a willing seller and a willing buyer where ARIN has refused to update WHOIS or rDNS, I'd be interested to hear about them. R's, John
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On Sat, 5 Feb 2011, Jack Bates wrote: That's my point. If a legacy holder can update WHOIS, I presume they can also just allocate the entire block to someone else. It would reflect that in WHOIS, no one would consider it hijacked. Does ARIN accept SWIP requests for IPs within legacy space assignments? -- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 09:12:53PM +, John Curran wrote: On Feb 5, 2011, at 2:33 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: decides current policy. when current policy directly contridicts the policies under which old address space was allocated, which policy trumps? Bill - RFC 2050 is the document which provides the registry system framework. Jon Postel is an author of same, as well as a founder of ARIN. yup.. i was there when it was written. what is not clear in that RFC is the status and effect of RFC 2050 (and subsiquent policy built on that foundation) on allocations made -prior- to RFC 2050. telling text is here: This document describes the IP assignment policies currently used by the Regional Registries to implement the guidelines developed by the IANA It does not talk to address space allocated to entities from the IANA or other registries prior to the RIRs existance. oddly enough, the year prior to RFC 2050 being published, jon asked me to run a specialized address registry for things like exchange points. that service matched the subject of this thread... we didn't own any infrastrucuture, but we provided (and successors still provide) neutral address management services to those who wish it. it took the RIR system a few years to catch up and provide a similar service. We've adhered to these principles from RFC 2050 in address management without exception, and even in policy development today. a firm foundation on which to build. When you speak of the policies of old allocations, please be specific. If they predated Jon, that would indeed be quite interesting. well - jon did point out the butcher-paper agreement, signed by all the grad students, agreeing that jon was the address maven... so anything pre-dating jon would be a trick. (the actual document is in the postel archives ... if you are interested...) i beleive i have produced for ARIN a letter from SRI to me - indicating that certain address blocks were given to me to use. No reference to an entity other than me, no claim for compliance with justified need or acceptable-use, no indication that any subsiquant policy would be binding in the future. Pretty much, we are sorry that you were forced to renumber 'cause we messed up w/ the -connected/unconneted- databases - please take these blocks as a token of our consideration... Doesn't sound like RFC 2050 fodder to me. This type of letter flies in the face of current policy; allocations to legal entities that are not natural persons, justified need, requirements to periodically check in and re-affirm usage compliance I just think that there are going to be turbulent waters when the ARIN community pushes to hard to force these folk into their (narrow) framework of acceptable use. I wish it was not so - but I am persuaded that it will be inevitable - given the current course of events. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On Feb 5, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote: On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:27 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: If I justified an allocation 20 years ago, under the then current policy, it's presumptuous to presume the power of expropriation. No one presumes it, and a lot of us are in the same boat as you, some of the addresses we're using predating the RIR system. That said, there will always be people who will turn up on the mailing list, participating in the public policy process, who are not in that boat, and whose interests differ significantly, and who will speak in favor of those interests. And the consensus of the public, the people who participate in the public policy process, is what decides The ARIN community decides ARIN policy. That policy doesn't inherently reflect community standards in the broader sense, or inherently align with the law for that matter. If the ARIN community were to instruct ARIN to operate in an illegal capacity, for instance, the fact that a community reached consensus on the matter would be a ridiculous defense. Cheers, -Benson
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:31 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: ... The ARIN community decides ARIN policy. That policy doesn't inherently reflect community standards in the broader sense, or inherently align with the law for that matter. If the ARIN community were to instruct ARIN to operate in an illegal capacity, for instance, the fact that a community reached consensus on the matter would be a ridiculous defense. Benson - You are correct that consensus doesn't assure legality; hence all draft policies receive a specific staff and legal review during the development process. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:31 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: On Feb 5, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote: On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:27 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: If I justified an allocation 20 years ago, under the then current policy, it's presumptuous to presume the power of expropriation. No one presumes it, and a lot of us are in the same boat as you, some of the addresses we're using predating the RIR system. That said, there will always be people who will turn up on the mailing list, participating in the public policy process, who are not in that boat, and whose interests differ significantly, and who will speak in favor of those interests. And the consensus of the public, the people who participate in the public policy process, is what decides The ARIN community decides ARIN policy. That policy doesn't inherently reflect community standards in the broader sense, or inherently align with the law for that matter. If the ARIN community were to instruct ARIN to operate in an illegal capacity, for instance, the fact that a community reached consensus on the matter would be a ridiculous defense. Cheers, -Benson We have a lawyer that does an excellent job of advising us on legal concerns in our policy proposals. That is part of the policy process. As such, yes, they do somewhat inherently align with the law. As to reflecting community standards, I'm not sure what better measure of community standards one could propose beyond a bottom-up open consensus driven policy process such as what we have today. If you know a better way to make policy reflect community standards, there is the ACSP and I'm sure that the PDP committee would be very happy to get your input. Owen
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On Feb 5, 2011, at 2:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: The fact that a very large number of network operators use the data contained in the RIR system in a cooperative manner is convenient and makes the internet substantially more useful than I can imagine it would be under alternative scenarios. However, that does not mean that the RIRs are granting any sort of license, right to use, or ownership. Nor does it mean that terminating a registration constitutes taking away such a grant that was never given. This is a pretty tenuous position. If the Whois database isn't specifying the proper association between an organization and an address block, what is it for? I think you're suggesting that the definition of proper in this case is no more than ARIN's non-binding recommendation. If that's the case then ARIN has no authority as the address registry. I think ARIN's own statements, relationship with NRO and IANA, etc, all contradict this. On the other hand, if ARIN intends the Whois to reflect the proper association between organizations and address blocks, then it has some responsibility for the accuracy of that data. While not a perfect comparison, it would be somewhat like a financial services company hired to maintain shareholder ownership records of a public company - negligence in maintaining accurate records can result in criminal consequences. In fact, in my example, if the company decided to reallocate one group of shares to new owners they'd find themselves in a deep pile of trouble - we have laws that govern property rights, define theft and fraud, etc, all of which takes precedence over company policy. It would be disingenuous to offer a database of information, recommend it be used by the public, support its use as an authoritative source, and then deny any responsibility for the contents. I don't think your position on this particular topic reflects ARIN in reality. Cheers, -Benson
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:48 PM, John Curran wrote: You are correct that consensus doesn't assure legality; hence all draft policies receive a specific staff and legal review during the development process. Thanks, John. I'm aware of the legal review, as well as the AC and board gateways to policy adoption. I don't have any recommendation for improving that process, per se - just a healthy dose of skepticism that it will always result in alignment with the law, especially given that the legal authority of ARIN isn't clearly defined. On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:44 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: As to reflecting community standards, I'm not sure what better measure of community standards one could propose beyond a bottom-up open consensus driven policy process such as what we have today. Owen, my point is that the ARIN community does not necessarily reflect the community at large. Just like the common standards within the mafia community aren't necessarily aligned with the broader standards of civil society. If ARIN is appointed in an official capacity (i.e. granted such authority by the government, or by popular vote etc) to determine specific community standards then we don't have to worry. Otherwise, ARIN has to work carefully to ensure that it doesn't go awry. In that sense, the relative smallness of the ARIN community and ARIN's organizational momentum (natural to any self-preserving organization) should be of concern. Cheers, -Benson
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:40 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 09:12:53PM +, John Curran wrote: RFC 2050 is the document which provides the registry system framework. Jon Postel is an author of same, as well as a founder of ARIN. yup.. i was there when it was written. Excellent; it could prove helpful in clarifying things. It does not talk to address space allocated to entities from the IANA or other registries prior to the RIRs existance. Is it your belief that Jon did not intend RFC 2050 to apply to the existing allocations maintained by the three regional registries in existence at the time (InterNIC, RIPE NCC and APNIC)? I imagine that is plausible, but it would run contrary to the language which states that assignments should be viewed as loans and to this end, ISPs should have documented justification available for each assignment. The regional registry may, at any time, ask for this information. If the information is not available, future allocations may be impacted. In extreme cases, existing loans may be impacted. I'm having trouble understanding how *existing* allocations could be impacted if existing registry allocations were not covered. Or are you suggesting that RFC 2050 applies, but there is a select set of ISP allocations that were outside of InterNIC, APNIC, and RIPE NCC to which special handling is applied? Further, RFC 2050 states 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. Even one were to hypothecate some type of address space that could be the *source* of a transfer due to a mystical handling status, how could any party be the *recipient* of such without demonstrating need to one of the regional registries per the second referenced text? Is this also a case where it was meant to exclude some special parties but just did not get stated in the actual RFC 2050 text? Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On Feb 5, 2011, at 9:24 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: On Feb 5, 2011, at 2:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: The fact that a very large number of network operators use the data contained in the RIR system in a cooperative manner is convenient and makes the internet substantially more useful than I can imagine it would be under alternative scenarios. However, that does not mean that the RIRs are granting any sort of license, right to use, or ownership. Nor does it mean that terminating a registration constitutes taking away such a grant that was never given. I need to be very clear here... The opinions I am expressing are mine and mine alone. I don't know if ANYONE at ARIN shares them with me. This is a pretty tenuous position. If the Whois database isn't specifying the proper association between an organization and an address block, what is it for? I think you're suggesting that the definition of proper in this case is no more than ARIN's non-binding recommendation. If that's the case then ARIN has no authority as the address registry. I think ARIN's own statements, relationship with NRO and IANA, etc, all contradict this. What I am saying is that ARIN and the Whois database ARIN maintains is authoritative only so far as those using the data wish to consider it authoritative. It does not command any particular network operator to treat any set of numbers in any particular way. ARIN is the registry recognized as authoritative in its geographic region by NRO and IANA. However, one can maintain a database of integers that is not sanction by NRO and IANA and if people choose to put your numbers into their routers instead of ARIN or other NRO or IANA based registry numbers, who is to stop them or you? The ability of ARIN to influence the routing table is strictly limited to the fact that ISPs choose to consider ARIN authoritative. That choice is entirely voluntary on the part of the ISPs. On the other hand, if ARIN intends the Whois to reflect the proper association between organizations and address blocks, then it has some responsibility for the accuracy of that data. While not a perfect comparison, it would be somewhat like a financial services company hired to maintain shareholder ownership records of a public company - negligence in maintaining accurate records can result in criminal consequences. In fact, in my example, if the company decided to reallocate one group of shares to new owners they'd find themselves in a deep pile of trouble - we have laws that govern property rights, define theft and fraud, etc, all of which takes precedence over company policy. I think ARIN has tremendous responsibility for the accuracy of that data. However, the definition of what is accurate is governed only by ARIN policy and the contracts ARIN has to provide registration services. It would be disingenuous to offer a database of information, recommend it be used by the public, support its use as an authoritative source, and then deny any responsibility for the contents. I don't think your position on this particular topic reflects ARIN in reality. I am not denying that ARIN has responsibility for the contents of the database. I absolutely feel they are responsible to the members and to the resource holders who pay ARIN for registration services to keep that data accurate. So far, they have also voluntarily accepted additional data which may or may not be accurate in support of a community of pre-existing registrations that have no contract with ARIN. There is no reason I know of that ARIN would not be within its rights to terminate that free voluntary registration service at any time. Note, I think such an action on ARINs part would be ill-advised and contrary to the good of the community and harmful to the internet. It might even be damaging to ARINs very relevance to the internet. I'm merely pointing out that legacy holders cannot be assured ARIN will continue to provide a free registration service for them in perpetuity. If they want to guarantee the services they have today, signing the LRSA is crucial. If they do not sign the LRSA, there is nothing to prevent the community from changing ARIN policy in such a way that said free services are terminated. I will oppose any such move by the community. I have strongly opposed previous efforts in this direction. However, I am one voice in a much larger community. Owen
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
John, On Feb 5, 2011, at 7:33 PM, John Curran wrote: It does not talk to address space allocated to entities from the IANA or other registries prior to the RIRs existance. Is it your belief that Jon did not intend RFC 2050 to apply to the existing allocations maintained by the three regional registries in existence at the time (InterNIC, RIPE NCC and APNIC)? Last I checked, the other four authors of RFC 2050 are still alive. Why not ask them? Further, RFC 2050 states 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'm curious: when HP acquired the assets of Compaq (or when Compaq acquired the assets of Digital), is it your position that HP (or Compaq) met the same criteria as if they were requesting an IP address directly from the IR. for 16.0.0.0/8? Regards, -drc
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On Feb 6, 2011, at 1:25 AM, David Conrad wrote: Last I checked, the other four authors of RFC 2050 are still alive. Why not ask them? Bill indicated he was there when it was written in reference to Jon being an author, and I was inquiring to whether he had any knowledge of Jon's intent that he could share. If you have knowledge of Jon's intent, or any insight on why RFC 2050 includes the existing allocations if the intent was actually to leave it vague with respect to same, that also would be helpful. Further, RFC 2050 states 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'm curious: when HP acquired the assets of Compaq (or when Compaq acquired the assets of Digital), is it your position that HP (or Compaq) met the same criteria as if they were requesting an IP address directly from the IR. for 16.0.0.0/8? The handling of general case varies based on the community developed policy over the years, currently as specified by NRPM 8.2 (MA Transfer) in https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html. There's a Change Log on the page if you want to track the policy at any given point in time. I can not comment on any specific transfer request, but will note that at one time the MA transfer policy allowed transfer of all held number resources without justification of need as long as the entire entity was involved, but at this point the policy indicates that: In the event that number resources of the combined organizations are no longer justified under ARIN policy at the time ARIN becomes aware of the transaction, through a transfer request or otherwise, ARIN will work with the resource holder(s) to return, aggregate, or reclaim resources as appropriate via the processes outlined in current ARIN policy (for example, sections 4.6, 4.7, or 12 of the NRPM). FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
John, I would hope that if some ARIN policy is enacted there would be some way to differentiate between organizations, like the one I belong to, that have provided this kind of service to customers for a number of years and organizations looking to take advantage of the new scarcity. We have and do provide IP space for other ISPs (mainly small and mid size) despite not providing connectivity for a number of reasons. We began providing this as a way of getting connectivity provider independent space to ISPs that lacked their own ASN and usually were not multi-homed because I had so many ISPs changing their upstream provider that it was causing us issues in both our engineering and call center teams. We provide network engineering (think re-IPing lots of ISP networks) and end user technical support (think lots of calls from upset customer who had to change their static IP) for many ISPs around the country. We certainly don't have a huge allocation, we have 209 /24s reassigned and 9 reallocated currently. We also pass along all of the usage and reporting requirements that ARIN requires of us. We also don't make money on the practice we charge a small amount on an annual basis for record keeping. As I said, we started this mainly to prevent network disruption and extra work _not_ as a profit center. How a line might be drawn I don't know, but its important to understand that there are very legitimate reasons to reassign or reallocate space even if you are not providing connectivity for a given network. On 2/3/2011 11:54 AM, John Curran wrote: On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Jon Lewis wrote: My point being, the leasing of IP space to non-connectivity customers is already well established, whether it's technically permitted by the [ir]relevant RIRs. I fully expect this to continue and spread. Eventually, holders of large legacy blocks will realize they can make good money acting as an LIR, leasing portions of their unused space to people who need it and can't get it, want it and don't qualify, etc. These start-up LIRs won't be bound by RIR policies, both because in some cases they'll be legacy space holders with no RSA with their region's RIR, and because they won't be worried about eligibility for future RIR allocations of v4 space...because there won't be any. For the ARIN region, it would be nice to know how you'd like ARIN perform in the presence of such activity (leasing IP addresses by ISP not providing connectivity). It's possible that such is perfectly reasonable and to simply be ignored, it's also possible that such should be considered a fraudulent transfer and the resources reclaimed. At the end of the day, the policy is set by this community, and clarity over ambiguity is very helpful. Policy proposal process: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 Looking for hand-selected news, views and tips for independent broadband providers? Follow us on Twitter! http://twitter.com/ZCorum
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers (was: Re: And so it ends... )
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, John Curran wrote: On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Jon Lewis wrote: My point being, the leasing of IP space to non-connectivity customers is already well established, whether it's technically permitted by the [ir]relevant RIRs. I fully expect this to continue and spread. Eventually, holders of large legacy blocks will realize they can make good money acting as an LIR, leasing portions of their unused space to people who need it and can't get it, want it and don't qualify, etc. These start-up LIRs won't be bound by RIR policies, both because in some cases they'll be legacy space holders with no RSA with their region's RIR, and because they won't be worried about eligibility for future RIR allocations of v4 space...because there won't be any. For the ARIN region, it would be nice to know how you'd like ARIN perform in the presence of such activity (leasing IP addresses by ISP not providing connectivity). It's possible that such is perfectly reasonable and to simply be ignored, it's also possible that such should be considered a fraudulent transfer and the resources reclaimed. At the end of the day, the policy is set by this community, and clarity over ambiguity is very helpful. I'm not saying that ARIN should. Even if I thought ARIN should, I suspect the policy process (to develop policies governing org to org IP space leases) would be a waste of everyone's time, because I seriously doubt any policy attempting to forbid or control such activity would be possible to enforce. I merely meant to point out that it's already happening, and IMO, will continue and spread. Additionally, I suspect any attempt by the RIRs to become the sole brokers or clearing houses for org to org IP space transactions within their regions will be futile. There may be some utility to the RIRs providing such a function, but I don't believe the RIRs will be able to control the markets and prevent ad-hoc LIRs from popping up and operating however they see fit. -- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Re: Leasing of space via non-connectivity providers
On 2/3/2011 9:32 AM, Scott Helms wrote: John, I would hope that if some ARIN policy is enacted there would be some way to differentiate between organizations, like the one I belong to, that have provided this kind of service to customers for a number of years and organizations looking to take advantage of the new scarcity. We have and do provide IP space for other ISPs (mainly small and mid size) despite not providing connectivity for a number of reasons. We began providing this as a way of getting connectivity provider independent space to ISPs that lacked their own ASN and usually were not multi-homed because I had so many ISPs changing their upstream provider that it was causing us issues in both our engineering and call center teams. We provide network engineering (think re-IPing lots of ISP networks) and end user technical support (think lots of calls from upset customer who had to change their static IP) for many ISPs around the country. We certainly don't have a huge allocation, we have 209 /24s reassigned and 9 reallocated currently. We also pass along all of the usage and reporting requirements that ARIN requires of us. We also don't make money on the practice we charge a small amount on an annual basis for record keeping. As I said, we started this mainly to prevent network disruption and extra work _not_ as a profit center. How a line might be drawn I don't know, but its important to understand that there are very legitimate reasons to reassign or reallocate space even if you are not providing connectivity for a given network. It isn't at all clear to me how your business model is different from an ISP that chooses to connect their customer base to the Internet by buying multiple transit connections that happen to terminate very close to the customer's CPE. Or an ISP that has its own IP space but is letting their DSL aggregator announce it and provide the downstream DSL circuits to the ISP's customers. Seems perfectly legitimate to me. Matthew Kaufman
