..@arin.net
> <mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net>] On Behalf Of Jason Schiller
> Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 2:54 PM
> To: Scott Leibrand mailto:scottleibr...@gmail.com>>
> Cc: ARIN-PPML List mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-3 Revisi
To be clear, I’m proposing a 6 month sliding window.
Owen
> On Feb 9, 2017, at 08:39 , Jason Schiller wrote:
>
> Owen,
>
> After reading your mail, I noticed I artificially shortened the text for C.
> It should have been what you described as your preferred choice.
>
> Re-asking the questio
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 12:35:29PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> Respectfully I reject your premise on the fairness.
Agreed. It imposes more process (on ARIN and on the requester) for
organizations whose demand for space is higher. This is neither unfair
nor new, and seems reasonable. Larger tr
-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-3 Revisited - anti-abuse clause
Kevin,
Yes, A is the current proposed text.
B, which you are not comfortable with, allows you to come back and re-certify
under what is currently used for approving ARIN space for ISP slow start, as
was the original
> *From:* ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] *On Behalf Of *Jason
> Schiller
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 7, 2017 2:54 PM
> *To:* Scott Leibrand
> *Cc:* ARIN-PPML List
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-3 Revisited - anti-abuse clause
>
>
>
> We have a few o
;
>
> *From:* ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] *On Behalf Of *Jason
> Schiller
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 7, 2017 2:54 PM
> *To:* Scott Leibrand
> *Cc:* ARIN-PPML List
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-3 Revisited - anti-abuse clause
>
>
>
> We ha
] 2016-3 Revisited - anti-abuse clause
We have a few options on the table and only a few voices in the discussion...
I'd like to quickly outline the options, and see if we can get more people to
weigh in and either note they object to one or more options, are ambivalent to
one or more option
Maybe fairness was not the word I was looking for...
I don't mind large organizations using a more difficult process or
requiring greater proof, as was the case with the "less simplified
provisions of the existing policy" wrt the ISP slow start policy of the
ARIN pool. But slow start as it is cur
Not a new voice, but C for me please. It avoids a bunch of corner cases that A
introduces, but is far simpler and easier for everyone to understand than B. It
also is more consistent with the original idea of a /16 limit, which gets us
the simplification benefit for the vast majority of transfer
Owen,
After reading your mail, I noticed I artificially shortened the text for
C. It should have been what you described as your preferred choice.
Re-asking the question for clarity (and hopes of getting new voices).
We have a few options on the table and only a few voices in the
discussion...
Respectfully I reject your premise on the fairness.
Neither A, nor C prevent large organizations from getting more, they merely
require that they use other less simplified provisions of the existing policy.
I think what I support is sort of a hybrid between A and C in that I believe
you should
I support B.
It puts added work on those who need more than a /16, or have a growth rate
more than doubling every half yeah, but does not prevent organizations who
need IP addresses from getting them.
I oppose A and C as they are unfair,
A.
- unfairly penalizes large organizations that need mo
We have a few options on the table and only a few voices in the
discussion...
I'd like to quickly outline the options, and see if we can get more people
to weigh in and either note they object to one or more options, are
ambivalent to one or more options, or support one or more options (with
some
they are occurring.
All either of us can work with is our opinion. Again, absence of evidence isn’t
evidence of absence, no matter how much you would like to claim that is the
case.
I can’t personally prove that front-running orders happens in the stock market,
but I’m pretty sure it does
elong.com <mailto:o...@delong.com>]
> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 5:26 PM
> To: Mike Burns mailto:m...@iptrading.com>>
> Cc: David Huberman mailto:dav...@panix.com>>;
> arin-ppml@arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-3 Rev
That would be a significant improvement on the current ("An organization
may only qualify under 8.5.7 once every 6 months.") text. I would be
equally fine with this text ("No more than a total of a /16 equivalent may
be transferred under these provisions within any 6 month period." or
similar) or
I am not the one making rules based on frankly unsubstantiated fears.
Where is your evidence?"
Regards,
Mike
Owen
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: David R Huberman [mailto:dav...@panix.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 11:04
To: Mike Burns
Cc: David Huberman ; arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-3 Revisited
No, Mike, You are missing that “an organization’s business purpose” may be
something other than “running an operational network”.
We are attempting to ensure that the addresses go to those who
rts to prevent same to be
equally worthy of a donkey and substantial eye-rolling.
Owen
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: David R Huberman [mailto:dav...@panix.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 11:04 AM
> To: Mike Burns
> Cc
[mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of David R
> Huberman
> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 10:19 AM
> To: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-3 Revisited
>
>
> I thought of a possible problem with the anti-abuse language -- all versions
> of it. Let m
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
> From: David Huberman [mailto:dav...@panix.com <mailto:dav...@panix.com>]
> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 10:43 AM
> To: Mike Burns mailto:m...@iptrading.com>>
> Cc: Jason Schiller mailto:jschil...@google.com>>;
> arin-ppml@arin.net
Simple to resolve for the 6-month horizon —
… Such that no more than a total of a /16 equivalent may be transferred under
these provisions within any 6 month period. …
Owen
> On Feb 3, 2017, at 07:19 , David R Huberman wrote:
>
>
> I thought of a possible problem with the anti-abuse language
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 8:46 AM, Jason Schiller wrote:
> David,
>
> TL;DR
> The policy says "one or more transfers up to the total size of their
> current ARIN IPv4 address holdings"
>
> My read suggests you can do one or many transfers within a two year window
> up to the amount approved. There
David,
TL;DR
The policy says "one or more transfers up to the total size of their
current ARIN IPv4 address holdings"
My read suggests you can do one or many transfers within a two year window
up to the amount approved. There is no need to re-demonstrate utilization
within the two year window so
gt;
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> From: David Huberman [mailto:dav...@panix.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 10:43 AM
> To: Mike Burns
> Cc: Jason Schiller ; arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-3 Revisited
>
>
>
> Mik
, 2017 10:19 AM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-3 Revisited
I thought of a possible problem with the anti-abuse language -- all versions of
it. Let me talk it out.
An organization has a /19.
It has growing products, and wants another /19 for its 1 or 2 year need.
It wants to
: Jason Schiller ; arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-3 Revisited
Mike,
I buy a /13. I abuse the spirit of 2016-3, meant for smaller transfers as our
first attempt at no needs testing, by reiterating /16 transfers one after the
other.
Market pricing doesn't stop this, and the
section 8.5.
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of David R
Huberman
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 10:19 AM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-3 Revisited
I thought of a possible problem with the anti
Huberman [mailto:dav...@panix.com]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 10:43 AM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: Jason Schiller ; arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-3 Revisited
Mike,
I buy a /13. I abuse the spirit of 2016-3, meant for smaller transfers as our
first attempt at no needs testing, by
Mike,
I buy a /13. I abuse the spirit of 2016-3, meant for smaller transfers as our
first attempt at no needs testing, by reiterating /16 transfers one after the
other.
Market pricing doesn't stop this, and the ARIN community who participates in
public policy matters has made it clear that an
If that approach still doesn't work can you suggest some other mechanism to
prevent abuse that does not prevent an organization who needs IP space from
using this policy?
Hi Jason,
Why are we ignoring the mechanism that prevents organizations from buying
un-needed anything? To wi
I thought of a possible problem with the anti-abuse language -- all
versions of it. Let me talk it out.
An organization has a /19.
It has growing products, and wants another /19 for its 1 or 2 year need.
It wants to avail itself of the new language.
It is able to buy a /20 from Buyer A, and a
David,
This policy was proposed to make transfers easy, with predictable
outcomes, for organizations that have used what they got and likely need
more.
This policy was not proposed to ration to those organizations with the most
need, which is exactly what the up to a /16 every 6 months does.
I
What I dislike about the proposed addition of:
"- at least 50% utilization of each allocation and assignment"
... is it gives ARIN staff no room to take into account individual
topology.
I may run a network at 95% utilization across all IP addresses. But I may
also have a pool of addresses
Can staff comment on this specific question.
Post implementation of 2016-5, will all the requirements for the approval
of a specified transfer be contained in 8.5?
In other words if I had what would have previously been an accepted
justification under section 4 for a specified transfer, and that
> On Feb 1, 2017, at 15:05 , Jason Schiller wrote:
>
> Owen,
>
> Also with the passage of 2016-5 severing transfer justification from section
> 4, I do not believe "the conventional method" is still available.
>
> In the case where an ISP is more than doubling, it gets a slow start block,
>
> On Feb 1, 2017, at 13:57 , Jason Schiller wrote:
>
> Owen,
>
> My experience suggests renumbering that much IP space that is actually in use
> is non-trivial.
>
I think that depends tremendously on the type of network. Since MSOs seem to
renumber some batch of customers on /20s and sometim
Owen,
Also with the passage of 2016-5 severing transfer justification from
section 4, I do not believe "the conventional method" is still available.
In the case where an ISP is more than doubling, it gets a slow start block,
and if that is less than a one year supply the next time it gets twice a
Owen,
My experience suggests renumbering that much IP space that is actually in
use is non-trivial.
However, if renumbering as a justification sounds insufficient to many how
about demonstrated growth equal or greater than 50% of the transferred IP
space.
Certainly an organization had to list th
I argue that it is insufficient and that a 6-month moratorium on a second
simplified transfer is easier for everyone to understand and implement.
The reason I feel it is insufficient is that renumbering a DHCP server handing
out a /17 (or cobbling up a DHCP server handing out a /17) isn’t a part
I support this proposal, either as amended thus far by David and the AC, or
(preferentially) as suggested by Jason.
I believe Jason's suggestion (restoring the "at least 50% utilization of
each allocation and assignment" condition to the 8.5.7 conditions) would
adequately address the "transfer /16
needs testing altogether
until and unless some problems arise from that removal.
Regards,
Mike
From: Jason Schiller [mailto:jschil...@google.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 11:48 AM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: David R Huberman ; arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-3
Mike,
I am confused by your email.
You say "I argue that the need to pay money for IP space is sufficient pain
to avoid abuse by organizations that don’t actually need IP space."
Does than mean you would support the policy as written without the once
every six month cap limitation?
Sounds like
Taking the abuse example above of an organization with a /8 that is is 90%
utilized,
the organization would need to transfer in a /16.
Then the organization would need to put 32,768 of the new IPs into service,
or renumber the use of 32,768 of IPs from the older IP space to the new space.
As one of the originators of this policy change I welcome the rewrite,
with the exception the mechanism to avoid abuse.
Can someone explain the "abuse" concerns if I have not correctly captured
it?
Abuse concern:
-
As far as I can tell, the combination of 2016-5 and this prop
...@arin.net] On Behalf Of David R
Huberman
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 8:19 AM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2016-3 Revisited
Hello,
TL;DR: We updated 2016-3 to fit into the upcoming NRPM, and closed an abuse
vector. We kept the original text and just incorporated it in the new
Hello,
TL;DR: We updated 2016-3 to fit into the upcoming NRPM, and closed an
abuse vector. We kept the original text and just incorporated it in the
new section 8.5 so it works, and time limited it to once every 6 months.
Background:
At the ARIN meeting in Dallas, there was a discussion ab
47 matches
Mail list logo
