Re: IPv4 address exchange

On Apr 19, 2011, at 9:08 PM, Peter Thimmesch wrote: > John, > > Please note that we have filed our proposal for accreditation of IP address > registrars with ICANN over a month ago. (Please see ICANN's Correspondence > Page, Letters from David Holtzman to David Olive and John Jeffrey, filed 2 > M

Re: IPv4 address exchange

It is going to be hard to constructively debate the merits of a proposal that begins with a rather condescending ad hominem attack. There are multiple ways to bring a policy discussion in front of a larger / different audience than whatever group or stakeholder community you seek to raise it in, b

IPv4 address exchange

John, Please note that we have filed our proposal for accreditation of IP address registrars with ICANN over a month ago. (Please see ICANN's Correspondence Page, Letters from David Holtzman to David Olive and John Jeffrey, filed 2 March 2011, Proposed Statement of IP Policy)

Re: IPv4 address exchange

On Apr 19, 2011, at 4:26 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote: > I don't think the cost of IPv4 addresses has anywhere to go but up. > This mysterious Nortel/Microsoft transaction would seem to give > credibility to an assumption of increasing cost. I think we can agree on this. It is the natural result of e

Re: IPv4 address exchange

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: > Without defining what an optimal cost might be, my comment was intended to > show that our current baseline already results in a surplus. I don't think the cost of IPv4 addresses has anywhere to go but up. This mysterious Nortel/Microso

Re: IPv4 address exchange

On Apr 19, 2011, at 4:45 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Given ARIN's STLS, it would seem even ARIN has the 'right perspective' > to see the "up$ide". To be clear, the listing service is simply so that those who want to be contacted because they need address space can identify themselves, along with

Re: IPv4 address exchange

On Apr 19, 2011, at 3:46 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Benson Schliesser > wrote: >> Meanwhile, under the current system, ARIN has managed to accumulate a >$25M >> cash reserve despite an increasing budget. (see >> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/

Re: IPv4 address exchange

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Benson Schliesser > wrote: >> Meanwhile, under the current system, ARIN has managed to accumulate a >$25M >> cash reserve despite an increasing budget. (see >> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/repor

Re: IPv4 address exchange

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: > Meanwhile, under the current system, ARIN has managed to accumulate a >$25M > cash reserve despite an increasing budget. (see > https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVII/PDF/Wednesday/andersen_treasurer.pdf) If you w

Re: IPv4 address exchange

John, Given ARIN's STLS, it would seem even ARIN has the 'right perspective' to see the "up$ide". It's more about the implication of folks having increasing financial incentive to go outside the existing mechanisms (e.g., Nortel/Microsoft) and the implications that has on network operations. S

Re: IPv4 address exchange

On Apr 19, 2011, at 3:56 PM, David Conrad wrote: > On Apr 19, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote: >> >> Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how a bunch of different >> entities providing fragmented "post-allocation services" is of any >> benefit. > > Some folks find competition in se

Re: IPv4 address exchange

On Apr 19, 2011, at 2:56 PM, David Conrad wrote: > On Apr 19, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote: >> Are you saying there are people who advocate creating a new ecosystem >> of service providers for supplying several things that the RIRs >> exclusively supply today? > > Yes. > >> Sign me up.

Re: IPv4 address exchange

On Apr 19, 2011, at 3:29 PM, David Conrad wrote: > to the list I provided you in the previous message. Or are you implying that > ARIN and the other RIRs are committing to synchronizing their databases with > alternative address registrars as they become established? If by "established", you mea

Re: IPv4 address exchange

Jeff, On Apr 19, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote: > Are you saying there are people who advocate creating a new ecosystem > of service providers for supplying several things that the RIRs > exclusively supply today? Yes. > Sign me up. As a vendor. I'd love to over-charge for the dead sim

Re: IPv4 address exchange

John, On Apr 19, 2011, at 9:36 AM, John Curran wrote: >> There are already two "address registrars" and at least 5 (6 if you count >> IANA) address whois databases. I expect there to be more in the future, >> particularly now there is an existence proof that you can sell addresses and >> the I

Re: IPv4 address exchange

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 2:37 PM, John Curran wrote: >    Imagine for a moment that you had quite a few > unneeded addresses and the upheaval also meant > no pesky policy constraints on your monetization efforts - > would you then view it as having some benefit?  You just > might not have the right

Re: IPv4 address exchange

On Apr 19, 2011, at 1:19 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote: > Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how a bunch of different > entities providing fragmented "post-allocation services" is of any > benefit. Jeff - Imagine for a moment that you had quite a few unneeded addresses and the upheaval a

Re: IPv4 address exchange

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 12:16 PM, David Conrad wrote: > However, as far as I can tell, multiple registries isn't what is implicitly > being proposed.  What appears to be eing proposed is something a bit like the > registry/registrar split, where there is a _single_ IPv4 registry and > multiple

Re: IPv4 address exchange

On Apr 19, 2011, at 12:16 PM, David Conrad wrote: > However, as far as I can tell, multiple registries isn't what is implicitly > being proposed. What appears to be eing proposed is something a bit like the > registry/registrar split, where there is a _single_ IPv4 registry and > multiple comp

Re: IPv4 address exchange

John, On Apr 19, 2011, at 3:46 AM, John Curran wrote: > Does it have to get worse simply because there is change? Have to? No. However, historically, entropy has generally increased. > I see no particular > reason that the Internet number registry system can't evolve into something > with m

Re: IPv4 address exchange

On Apr 18, 2011, at 10:35 PM, David Conrad wrote: > To try to bring this back to NANOG (instead of PPML-light), the issue is that > since at least two alternative registries have apparently been established, > how are network operators going to deal with the fact that the currently > execrable

Re: IPv4 address exchange

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 18:59, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> At John Curran's advice, the ARIN Advisory Council abandoned my proposals.   >> Two of them are now in "petition" for further discussion, including >> ARIN-prop-134 which outlines how to identify a "legitimate address holder" >> and ARIN-pr

Re: IPv4 address exchange

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:35 PM, David Conrad wrote: > And yet, Ron has recently raged on this list about hijacked prefixes used for > spamming, so clearly "no transit network" is inaccurate. I try to qualify my remarks when necessary. In this case, I wrote "except by act of omission/mistake,"

Re: IPv4 address exchange

On Apr 18, 2011, at 10:08 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> If anybody has any doubts and/or I can clarify anything about my >> interests, let me know. > > could you please clarify your relationship to depository.com? I know some of the people involved in Depository, and I have spoken with them about w

Re: IPv4 address exchange

> If anybody has any doubts and/or I can clarify anything about my > interests, let me know. could you please clarify your relationship to depository.com? randy

Re: IPv4 address exchange

>> perhaps, if you are seeking support for commercial activity, you should >> make your employment more clear and declare any conflicts of interest. > > Fair enough. > > I am employed by Cisco Systems, but all of my statements are my own and I do > not represent my employer.  I believe that my emp

Re: IPv4 address exchange

Hi, Randy. On Apr 18, 2011, at 9:20 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> I introduced several policy proposals to ARIN that deal with the >> question of authority and ownership. >> ... >> If anybody on NANOG supports these concepts, please express your >> support to PPML so that the proposals can move forwar

Re: IPv4 address exchange

Jeff, On Apr 18, 2011, at 6:15 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote: > ARIN has all the buy-in they need: No transit network will (except by > act of omission/mistake) allow you to announce IPs that aren't > registered to you in an RIR database, or delegated to you by the > registrant of those IPs. And yet, Ro

Re: IPv4 address exchange

> I introduced several policy proposals to ARIN that deal with the > question of authority and ownership. > ... > If anybody on NANOG supports these concepts, please express your > support to PPML so that the proposals can move forward. perhaps, if you are seeking support for commercial activity,

Re: IPv4 address exchange

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 7:33 PM, David Conrad wrote: > [ARIN] does not have full buy-in from those who they would try to regulate ARIN has all the buy-in they need: No transit network will (except by act of omission/mistake) allow you to announce IPs that aren't registered to you in an RIR databa

Re: IPv4 address exchange

> > At John Curran's advice, the ARIN Advisory Council abandoned my proposals. > Two of them are now in "petition" for further discussion, including > ARIN-prop-134 which outlines how to identify a "legitimate address holder" > and ARIN-prop-136 which allows a Legacy holder to "opt-out" of ARI

Re: IPv4 address exchange

On Apr 18, 2011, at 4:33 PM, David Conrad wrote: > On Apr 18, 2011, at 4:10 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Yes... See ARIN NRPM 8.3 and Simplified Transfer Listing Service (STLS). > > ARIN allows the listing of non-ARIN blocks on their listing service? > No. If you're talking about inter-RIR transfe

Re: IPv4 address exchange

On Apr 18, 2011, at 6:33 PM, David Conrad wrote: > As far as I can tell, the participants in ARIN's processes are more > interested in trying to be a regulator than in being a registry. Given ARIN > is not a government body and it does not have full buy-in from those who they > would try to re

Re: IPv4 address exchange

On Apr 18, 2011, at 6:33 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Also, doesn't the Microsoft-Nortel transaction violate NPRM 8.3 in that > according to the court documents I've seen, John Curran has stated unambiguously (on the ARIN PPML mailing list) that NRPM policy *was* followed. While I may disagree,

Re: IPv4 address exchange

On Apr 18, 2011, at 4:10 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Yes... See ARIN NRPM 8.3 and Simplified Transfer Listing Service (STLS). ARIN allows the listing of non-ARIN blocks on their listing service? Also, doesn't the Microsoft-Nortel transaction violate NPRM 8.3 in that according to the court documents

Re: IPv4 address exchange

On Apr 18, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Scott Weeks wrote: > Has this been discussed here? Not yet for this particular instance. > I did a quickie search and saw nothing. Other than spam to a technical > mailing list, do you guys care, or is it a non-issue? Unfortunately, it's an issue. It's a painful

Re: IPv4 address exchange

sage: > > From: "Martin v. Löwis" > To: apnic-t...@lists.apnic.net > Subject: [apnic-talk] IPv4 address exchange > Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:07:59 +0200 > > With the address pool exhausted in APNIC for regular allocations, > service providers will need a way to

IPv4 address exchange

Has this been discussed here? I did a quickie search and saw nothing. Other than spam to a technical mailing list, do you guys care, or is it a non-issue? scott --- Begin forwarded message: From: "Martin v. Löwis" To: apnic-t...@lists.apnic.net Subject: [apnic-talk] IP