I am in support of draft 2014-4. Rudi Daniel (information technologist) 784 430 9235 On Feb 6, 2014 4:11 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro Allocation > Conservation Update (John Springer) > 2. Re: support for 2014-1 (out of region use) (David Huberman) > 3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4: REMOVE 4.2.5 WEB HOSTING POLICY > (John Springer) > 4. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro Allocation > Conservation Update (Michael Still) > 5. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4: REMOVE 4.2.5 WEB HOSTING POLICY > (John Springer) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 09:26:35 -0800 (PST) > From: John Springer <[email protected]> > To: David Farmer <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro > Allocation Conservation Update > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > Comments inline. > > On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, David Farmer wrote: > > > On 2/5/14, 17:36 , Andrew Dul wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> This draft policy will be discussed next week at the nanog PPC, in > >> addition we welcome feedback on this draft on PPML. Specifically if you > >> could comment on the following two points it would be appreciated. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Andrew > >> > >> > >> Does the community support raising the minimum requirement for IXPs from > >> 2 to 3? > > > > I support the change from a two participants to a three participant > standard > > to qualify as an Internet Exchange Point (IXP). > > > > To date the risk created by allowing the minimum of two participates for > an > > IXP has been extremely low, as the motivation for abuse was also > extremely > > low. However, as we proceed through run-out of the general IPv4 free > pool > > the motivations for abuse will increase dramatically. Raising the > standard to > > three participants to qualify as an IXP seems like a prudent precaution > to > > ensure that the reservation for IXPs, and other critical infrastructure > that > > was made in ARIN-2011-4, is protected to ensure availability of > resources for > > legitimate IXPs in the future. > > > > There will be some impact on the start-up of some IXPs, this is > unfortunate. > > However, the three participant standard is not completely unreasonable, > given > > the potential for increased abuse of the two participant standard. > > The Open-IX community has had some discussions of this very subject. > Perhaps the author or other members of the Open-IX Board can summarize on > this specific matter. I believe the Open-IX community has settled on 3 as > the way forward. I am OK with that. > > >> Does the community believe that additional clarity is needed to define > >> if an IXP uses the end-user or ISP fee schedule? > > > > I believe both the old language and the new language regarding this issue > > should be stricken, this is an ARIN business issue, not a policy issue. > I > > have no problem with such a recommendation being included in the comments > > section, outside the policy text itself. I support the general concept > it > > represents, but it is just not a policy issue in my opinion. > > many pluses to the paragraph immediately preceeding. I feel that this is a > direct modification of the fee structure via policy, and therefore do not > support the draft policy as written. > > John Springer > > > > Thanks. > > > > -- > > ================================================ > > David Farmer Email: [email protected] > > Office of Information Technology > > University of Minnesota > > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 > > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 > > ================================================ > > _______________________________________________ > > PPML > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 18:40:55 +0000 > From: David Huberman <[email protected]> > To: "ARIN PPML ([email protected])" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] support for 2014-1 (out of region use) > Message-ID: > < > 0a573e7e5ec24a34bba99c20501e6...@dm2pr03mb398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Thank you, Milton, for bringing this thread up. > > I've reviewed 2014-1 and thought about it carefully. I am against this > proposal. I'll try and organize my thoughts, though they come from a few > different angles. > > Text: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_1.html > > 1) I'm against the specific 2014-1 language because I think it is almost > entirely no-op. > > In general, I want NRPM to be brief, concise, and prescriptive. "You > qualify by doing X. You don't qualify because of Y. You must show A, B, > C." We need less fluffy text in NRPM so that it is a more accessible and > polished Policy document, imho. In this case, only paragraph X.1 is > operational. It formally lays out just a few steps that ARIN already has > available to it. But these aren't the only tools ARIN has to verify > request data, and I'm not convinced that having these specific bullet > points in Policy helps the community or ARIN staff in any meaningful way. > > Put more straight forwardly: ARIN staff already have these mechanisms > available to them, and this policy text will not change the request process > materially. > > 2) The PPML community has reviewed similar proposals twice, in my > recollection. There was a draft limiting out-of-region use discussed in > Philadelphia. The community vocally was against it, and clearly told ARIN > staff to keep doing what they were already doing. There was also a draft > limiting out-of-region use discussed in Phoenix. The community was again > vocally against it, and clearly told the ARIN staff that this isn't a > policy area they wish to discuss. > > 3) At the same time, the staff are continuing to report that there are > significant problems from out-of-region requestors abusing the policies. > If you disagree with the PPML community (and I do - I think this is a > serious issue that cries for Policy changes), then we need to draft text > that significantly and materially helps ARIN staff fight fraud from > out-of-region requestors. > > With regards, > David > > David R Huberman > Microsoft Corporation > Senior IT/OPS Program Manager (GFS) > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Milton L Mueller > Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2014 6:42 AM > To: ARIN PPML ([email protected]) > Subject: [arin-ppml] support for 2014-1 (out of region use) > > Draft policy 2014-1 attempts to solve a problem left over from last year. > During 2013 there was a round of policy proposals attempting to tie ARIN > allocations more closely to usage in the region. They failed to gain > consensus because they would have interfered with trans-regional networks > in undesirable ways. Yet, current policy is still ambiguous on the issue of > out of region use of ARIN registered resources. This proposal attempts to > clear up that ambiguity in a way that avoids harmful effects on > transnational or trans-regional network operators. The gist of the idea is > to allow out of region use for organizations eligible for ARIN resources, > but also provide policy authorization for ARIN to charge fees to verify the > identity or usage of applicants outside the region. I think this approach > provides the most flexibility while addressing the only real problems that > have been cited for out of region use (verification issues). > > You can see the proposal in full here: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_1.html > Appreciate reading your comments about this. > > > Milton L Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > Internet Governance Project > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 11:27:59 -0800 (PST) > From: John Springer <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4: REMOVE 4.2.5 WEB > HOSTING POLICY > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII > > Greetings PPML readers, > > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4: REMOVE 4.2.5 WEB HOSTING POLICY will be > discussed next week during the Public Policy Consultation at NANOG 60 in > Atlanta. This Consultation will take place on Tuesday from 9:30AM to > 13:00PM in the Augusta Room. > > Comments are invited and welcome both here and there. The text of > the Draft Policy is below my comments, which follow. > > Comments (and questions) from me: > > Firstly, do you support or oppose Draft Policy 2014-4? > > This Draft Policy is functionally identical to the last bullet item of > Draft Policy 2013-7 - NRPM 4 (IPv4) policy cleanup, which also will be > presented next week. The author of this Draft Policy is aware of this > overlap and "would like it submitted and considered entirely separately". > One aspect of this situation is that the precursors of 2013-7 have > attracted energetic comment. Adoption of 2014-4 separately would decouple > this issue (2014-4) from the other parts of 2013-7 and its adoption or > rejection. What do you think? > > While the policy text of both proposals is functionally identical ("Remove > section 4.2.5 Web Hosting Policy" in 2013-7 and "Remove section 4.2.5" in > 2014-4), the problem statements differ. 2013-7 says, "Since ARIN received > its last /8, by IANA implementing section 10.4.2.2, this is now a > distinction without a difference." 2014-4 says "Section 4.2.5 is > technology-specific language that is not current with modern network > operation needs and practices. We should remove it to make NRPM clearer." > Both appear to be correct and sufficient. Which do you prefer and why? If > neither, and you support 2014-4, can you please suggest text? Since both > are Draft Policy, an opportunity exists for the AC to amend the problem > statements so the two are congruent. > > It has been suggested that this Draft Policy is without operational > impact, being purely a house cleaning matter. Do you agree? If not, what > operational relevance do you see? > > Thank you for your consideration of this matter. > > John Springer > > From: ARIN (info at arin.net) > Date: Wed Jan 29 10:26:51 EST 2014 > > On 24 January 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted > "ARIN-prop-196 Remove 4.2.5 Web Hosting Policy" as a Draft Policy. > > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4 is below and can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_4.html > > You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft > Policy 2014-4 on the Public Policy Mailing List. > > The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance > of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource > Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are: > > * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration > * Technically Sound > * Supported by the Community > > The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4 > Remove 4.2.5 Web Hosting Policy > > Date: 29 January 2014 > > Problem Statement: > > Section 4.2.5 is technology-specific language that is not current with > modern network operation needs and practices. We should remove it to > make NRPM clearer. > > Policy statement: > > Remove section 4.2.5. > > Comments: > a.Timetable for implementation: Immediate > b.Anything else: > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:45:12 -0500 > From: Michael Still <[email protected]> > To: John Springer <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro > Allocation Conservation Update > Message-ID: > < > capdtrigg96qkzavptm-rnjuoyoxn27qwqzijvuoeagf+wzs...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:26 PM, John Springer <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Comments inline. > > > > > > On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, David Farmer wrote: > > > >> On 2/5/14, 17:36 , Andrew Dul wrote: > >>> > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> This draft policy will be discussed next week at the nanog PPC, in > >>> addition we welcome feedback on this draft on PPML. Specifically if > you > >>> could comment on the following two points it would be appreciated. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Andrew > >>> > >>> > >>> Does the community support raising the minimum requirement for IXPs > from > >>> 2 to 3? > >> > >> > >> I support the change from a two participants to a three participant > >> standard to qualify as an Internet Exchange Point (IXP). > >> > >> To date the risk created by allowing the minimum of two participates for > >> an IXP has been extremely low, as the motivation for abuse was also > >> extremely low. However, as we proceed through run-out of the general > IPv4 > >> free pool the motivations for abuse will increase dramatically. Raising > the > >> standard to three participants to qualify as an IXP seems like a prudent > >> precaution to ensure that the reservation for IXPs, and other critical > >> infrastructure that was made in ARIN-2011-4, is protected to ensure > >> availability of resources for legitimate IXPs in the future. > >> > >> There will be some impact on the start-up of some IXPs, this is > >> unfortunate. However, the three participant standard is not completely > >> unreasonable, given the potential for increased abuse of the two > participant > >> standard. > > > > > > The Open-IX community has had some discussions of this very subject. > Perhaps > > the author or other members of the Open-IX Board can summarize on this > > specific matter. I believe the Open-IX community has settled on 3 as the > way > > forward. I am OK with that. > > > > > >>> Does the community believe that additional clarity is needed to define > >>> if an IXP uses the end-user or ISP fee schedule? > >> > >> > >> I believe both the old language and the new language regarding this > issue > >> should be stricken, this is an ARIN business issue, not a policy issue. > I > >> have no problem with such a recommendation being included in the > comments > >> section, outside the policy text itself. I support the general concept > it > >> represents, but it is just not a policy issue in my opinion. > > > > > > many pluses to the paragraph immediately preceeding. I feel that this is > a > > direct modification of the fee structure via policy, and therefore do not > > support the draft policy as written. > > > > John Springer > > > > Not really responding to you, you just happened to be the last in the > thread.. > > Perhaps we should look at tackling some of our dwindling number > resources issues in a different perspective. Have we considered > updating the policy to only issue prefix sizes which are reasonable in > the first place? What makes just setting up an IXP be enough to issue > a /24? What if this IXP is in a market in which there will never be > more than 126 participants? Or worse much less? Should these IXPs be > given /24s when a much smaller allocation may be all that's needed? > Or should every IXP have to start small and as their participation > increases they be issued new space to move into? > > I believe the argument for global prefix visibility of IXP space has > been largely discussed and consensus is that this space does not and > should not be globally reachable voiding any perceived need for a /24 > I believe. > > > > > > >> Thanks. > >> > >> -- > >> ================================================ > >> David Farmer Email: [email protected] > >> Office of Information Technology > >> University of Minnesota > >> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 > >> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 > >> ================================================ > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PPML > >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > >> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > PPML > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. > > > > -- > [[email protected] ~]$ cat .signature > cat: .signature: No such file or directory > [[email protected] ~]$ > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 12:08:30 -0800 (PST) > From: John Springer <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4: REMOVE 4.2.5 WEB > HOSTING POLICY > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > Correction: > > On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, John Springer wrote: > > > Greetings PPML readers, > > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4: REMOVE 4.2.5 WEB HOSTING POLICY will be > discussed > > next week during the Public Policy Consultation at NANOG 60 in Atlanta. > This > > Consultation will take place on Tuesday from 9:30AM to 13:00PM in the > Augusta > > Room. > > > > Comments are invited and welcome both here and there. The text of the > Draft > > Policy is below my comments, which follow. > > > > Comments (and questions) from me: > > > > Firstly, do you support or oppose Draft Policy 2014-4? > > > > This Draft Policy is functionally identical to the last bullet item of > Draft > > Policy 2013-7 - NRPM 4 (IPv4) policy cleanup, which also will be > presented > > next week. The author of this Draft Policy is aware of this overlap and > > "would like it submitted and considered entirely separately". One aspect > of > > this situation is that the precursors of 2013-7 have attracted energetic > > comment. Adoption of 2014-4 separately would decouple this issue (2014-4) > > from the other parts of 2013-7 and its adoption or rejection. What do you > > think? > > > > While the policy text of both proposals is functionally identical > ("Remove > > section 4.2.5 Web Hosting Policy" in 2013-7 and "Remove section 4.2.5" in > > 2014-4), the problem statements differ. 2013-7 says, "Since ARIN > received its > > last /8, by IANA implementing section 10.4.2.2, this is now a distinction > > without a difference." > > The correct problem statement for 2013-7 is "This information-gathering > policy has been in place for a decade now with no resulting policy > changes, and is no longer needed in light of IPv4 runout." > > > 2014-4 says "Section 4.2.5 is technology-specific > > language that is not current with modern network operation needs and > > practices. We should remove it to make NRPM clearer." Both appear to be > > correct and sufficient. Which do you prefer and why? If neither, and you > > support 2014-4, can you please suggest text? Since both are Draft > Policy, an > > opportunity exists for the AC to amend the problem statements so the two > are > > congruent. > > > > It has been suggested that this Draft Policy is without operational > impact, > > being purely a house cleaning matter. Do you agree? If not, what > operational > > relevance do you see? > > > > Thank you for your consideration of this matter. > > > > John Springer > > > > From: ARIN (info at arin.net) > > Date: Wed Jan 29 10:26:51 EST 2014 > > > > On 24 January 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted > > "ARIN-prop-196 Remove 4.2.5 Web Hosting Policy" as a Draft Policy. > > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4 is below and can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_4.html > > > > You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft > > Policy 2014-4 on the Public Policy Mailing List. > > > > The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance > > of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource > > Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are: > > > > * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration > > * Technically Sound > > * Supported by the Community > > > > The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > > > Regards, > > > > Communications and Member Services > > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > > > ## * ## > > > > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4 > > Remove 4.2.5 Web Hosting Policy > > > > Date: 29 January 2014 > > > > Problem Statement: > > > > Section 4.2.5 is technology-specific language that is not current with > > modern network operation needs and practices. We should remove it to > > make NRPM clearer. > > > > Policy statement: > > > > Remove section 4.2.5. > > > > Comments: > > a.Timetable for implementation: Immediate > > b.Anything else: > > _______________________________________________ > > PPML > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 104, Issue 3 > ***************************************** >
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
