I support the intent of both policies. Rudi Daniel On Sun, Mar 3, 2019, 15:38 <[email protected]> wrote:
> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://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-2019-1: Clarify Section 4 IPv4 Request > Requirements (Chris Woodfield) > 2. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2019-1: Clarify Section 4 IPv4 Request > Requirements (Scott Leibrand) > 3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2019-1: Clarify Section 4 IPv4 Request > Requirements (Joel Large) > 4. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2019-2: Waiting List Block Size > Restriction (Scott Leibrand) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2019 10:02:35 -0800 > From: Chris Woodfield <[email protected]> > To: Tom Fantacone <[email protected]> > Cc: hostmaster <[email protected]>, arin-ppml > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-1: Clarify Section 4 > IPv4 Request Requirements > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Hi Tom - responses inline. > > One additional point - the current policy places a limit on how often an > organization can receive resources from the waiting list. This draft > changes the hold-down timer so that it now applies to *applications* for > new allocations under the waiting list policy, not the receipt of resources > from it. > > > On Mar 3, 2019, at 7:18 AM, Tom Fantacone <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Chris, > > > > The "clarification" part of your proposal seems to be a no brainer (the > waiting period is meant to apply to allocations only under section 4). I > assume ARIN staff is already interpreting it this way since that was the > intent of the section. So I wouldn't sever it unless the full policy > doesn't gain support in which case we could revisit just inserting the > clarification part. > > > > That assumption is my understanding as well. > > > Regarding this: > > "- Disallows organizations that have transferred space to other parties > within the past 12 months from applying for additional IPv4 space under > NRPM Section 4. " > > > > I want to make sure I understand it correctly. If you transfer out > space via 8.2/8.3/8.4, does this restriction mean you just can't receive > space via the waiting list for 12 months, or via any mechanism (waiting > list/transfer) for 12 months? I think it means from the waiting list only, > but want to be sure. > > > > That is correct - note the phrase ?...under this section...? in the > proposal text. > > Thanks, > > -Chris > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > ---- On Sat, 02 Mar 2019 13:48:01 -0500 Chris Woodfield < > [email protected]> wrote ---- > > > > Speaking as the policy author, I?ll make two points: > > > > 1. I?m aware that given the other discussions around waiting list policy > that are ongoing, this proposal may well be rendered moot by future policy > changes. I still believe that this is worth pursuing as there?s a current > need for clarification and increased disincentives for bad behavior today. > > 2. I?m deliberately killing two not-terribly-related birds with one > stone with this proposal, based on the fact that the two issues noted from > the PER can be addressed by adding language to the same NRPM text. Happy to > consider severing them if the community prefers. > > > > Thanks, > > > > -Chris > > > > > On Mar 2, 2019, at 9:33 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > I think it is time to start the ball on the other policies. > > > > > > +1 on this. It seems focused on those gathering resources to resell. > > > > > > Albert Erdmann > > > Network Administrator > > > Paradise On Line Inc. > > t [email protected] if you experience any issues. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2019 10:52:41 -0800 > From: Scott Leibrand <[email protected]> > To: Chris Woodfield <[email protected]> > Cc: Tom Fantacone <[email protected]>, arin-ppml <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-1: Clarify Section 4 > IPv4 Request Requirements > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Thanks for clarifying that, Chris. I support this draft policy proposal: > forcing applicants to wait to get into line for free space will at least > slow down any attempts to make money off the free pool via the waiting > list. > > Scott > > > On Mar 3, 2019, at 10:02 AM, Chris Woodfield <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi Tom - responses inline. > > > > One additional point - the current policy places a limit on how often an > organization can receive resources from the waiting list. This draft > changes the hold-down timer so that it now applies to *applications* for > new allocations under the waiting list policy, not the receipt of resources > from it. > > > >> On Mar 3, 2019, at 7:18 AM, Tom Fantacone <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Chris, > >> > >> The "clarification" part of your proposal seems to be a no brainer (the > waiting period is meant to apply to allocations only under section 4). I > assume ARIN staff is already interpreting it this way since that was the > intent of the section. So I wouldn't sever it unless the full policy > doesn't gain support in which case we could revisit just inserting the > clarification part. > >> > > > > That assumption is my understanding as well. > > > >> Regarding this: > >> "- Disallows organizations that have transferred space to other parties > within the past 12 months from applying for additional IPv4 space under > NRPM Section 4. " > >> > >> I want to make sure I understand it correctly. If you transfer out > space via 8.2/8.3/8.4, does this restriction mean you just can't receive > space via the waiting list for 12 months, or via any mechanism (waiting > list/transfer) for 12 months? I think it means from the waiting list only, > but want to be sure. > >> > > > > That is correct - note the phrase ?...under this section...? in the > proposal text. > > > > Thanks, > > > > -Chris > > > > > >> Tom > >> > >> > >> > >> ---- On Sat, 02 Mar 2019 13:48:01 -0500 Chris Woodfield < > [email protected]> wrote ---- > >> > >> Speaking as the policy author, I?ll make two points: > >> > >> 1. I?m aware that given the other discussions around waiting list > policy that are ongoing, this proposal may well be rendered moot by future > policy changes. I still believe that this is worth pursuing as there?s a > current need for clarification and increased disincentives for bad behavior > today. > >> 2. I?m deliberately killing two not-terribly-related birds with one > stone with this proposal, based on the fact that the two issues noted from > the PER can be addressed by adding language to the same NRPM text. Happy to > consider severing them if the community prefers. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> -Chris > >> > >>> On Mar 2, 2019, at 9:33 AM, [email protected] wrote: > >>> > >>> I think it is time to start the ball on the other policies. > >>> > >>> +1 on this. It seems focused on those gathering resources to resell. > >>> > >>> Albert Erdmann > >>> Network Administrator > >>> Paradise On Line Inc. > >> t [email protected] if you experience any issues. > >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-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: > > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2019 13:58:22 -0500 > From: Joel Large <[email protected]> > To: Scott Leibrand <[email protected]>, Chris Woodfield > <[email protected]> > Cc: arin-ppml <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-1: Clarify Section 4 > IPv4 Request Requirements > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > I agree anything to curb this practice.? The fact we are asked to justify > the need for the IPV4 space and people are getting them falsely needing > them is frustrating.?Joel LargeGeneral ManagerGLW Broadband Inc.440 926 > 3230Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone > -------- Original message --------From: Scott Leibrand < > [email protected]> Date: 3/3/19 1:52 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Chris > Woodfield <[email protected]> Cc: arin-ppml <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-1: Clarify Section 4 IPv4 > ? Request Requirements Thanks for clarifying that, Chris. I support this > draft policy proposal: forcing applicants to wait to get into line for free > space will at least slow down any attempts to make money off the free pool > via the waiting list. Scott> On Mar 3, 2019, at 10:02 AM, Chris Woodfield < > [email protected]> wrote:> > Hi Tom - responses inline.> > One > additional point - the current policy places a limit on how often an > organization can receive resources from the waiting list. This draft > changes the hold-down timer so that it now applies to *applications* for > new allocations under the waiting list policy, not the receipt of resources > from it.> >> On Mar 3, 2019, at 7:18 AM, Tom Fantacone <[email protected]> > wrote:>> >> Chris,>> >> The "clarification" part of your proposal seems to > be a no brainer (the waiting period is meant to apply to allocations only > under section 4).? I assume ARIN staff is already interpreting it this way > since that was the intent of the section > .? So I wouldn't sever it unless the full policy doesn't gain support in > which case we could revisit just inserting the clarification part.>> > > > That assumption is my understanding as well.> >> Regarding this:>> "- > Disallows organizations that have transferred space to other parties within > the past 12 months from applying for additional IPv4 space under NRPM > Section 4. ">> >> I want to make sure I understand it correctly.? If you > transfer out space via 8.2/8.3/8.4, does this restriction mean you just > can't receive space via the waiting list for 12 months, or via any > mechanism (waiting list/transfer) for 12 months?? I think it means from the > waiting list only, but want to be sure.>> > > That is correct - note the > phrase ?...under this section...? in the proposal text. > > Thanks,> > > -Chris> > >> Tom>> >> >> >> ---- On Sat, 02 Mar 2019 13:48:01 -0500 Chris > Woodfield <[email protected]> wrote ---->> >> Speaking as the policy > author, I?ll make two points:>> >> 1. I?m aware th > at given the other discussions around waiting list policy that are > ongoing, this proposal may well be rendered moot by future policy changes. > I still believe that this is worth pursuing as there?s a current need for > clarification and increased disincentives for bad behavior today.>> 2. I?m > deliberately killing two not-terribly-related birds with one stone with > this proposal, based on the fact that the two issues noted from the PER can > be addressed by adding language to the same NRPM text. Happy to consider > severing them if the community prefers.>> >> Thanks,>> >> -Chris>> >>> On > Mar 2, 2019, at 9:33 AM, [email protected] wrote:>>> >>> I think it > is time to start the ball on the other policies.>>> >>> +1 on this. It > seems focused on those gathering resources to resell.>>> >>> Albert > Erdmann>>> Network Administrator>>> Paradise On Line Inc.>> t > [email protected] if you experience any issues.>> >> > > > _______________________________________________> ARIN-PPML> You are receivin > g this message because you are subscribed to> the ARIN Public Policy > Mailing List ([email protected]).> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing > list subscription at:> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any > issues._______________________________________________ARIN-PPMLYou are > receiving this message because you are subscribed tothe ARIN Public Policy > Mailing List ([email protected]).Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list > subscription at:https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppmlPlease > contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20190303/3e53098c/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2019 11:37:42 -0800 > From: Scott Leibrand <[email protected]> > To: ARIN <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-2: Waiting List Block > Size Restriction > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > I support Draft Policy ARIN-2019-2. IMO limiting waiting list recipients > to a /22 is a reasonable approach that somewhat reduces the gains for > fraudulent activity, and ensures that ARIN can serve more legitimate > requests for each block it reclaims/receives. Organizations needing more > than a /22 should be getting it from the transfer market anyway, so I don?t > see much downside to such a restriction on waiting list allocations. > > Scott > > > On Feb 26, 2019, at 9:49 AM, ARIN <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 21 February 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted > "ARIN-prop-261: Waiting List Block Size Restriction" as a Draft Policy. > > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2019-2 is below and can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2019_2.html > > > > You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. 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 Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are: > > > > * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration > > * Technically Sound > > * Supported by the Community > > > > The 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, > > > > Sean Hopkins > > Policy Analyst > > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > > > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2019-2: Waiting List Block Size Restriction > > > > Problem Statement: > > > > A substantial amount of misuse of the waiting list is suspected by ARIN > staff. A significant percentage of organizations that receive blocks from > the waiting list subsequently issue these blocks to other organizations via > 8.3 or 8.4 transfers shortly after the one year waiting period required > before engaging in such outbound transfers. Most of these cases involve > larger-sized blocks, and many involve organizations that already have large > IPv4 holdings. Some organizations engage in this practice multiple times, > rejoining the waiting list shortly after transferring out blocks previously > received on the waiting list. There are even cases of multiple startup > organizations requesting approval to be placed on the waiting list where > these organizations' requests can all be tracked originating from the same > IP address. While it is possible that some of these cases are legitimate, > and while it is difficult for ARIN to prove fraud in most individual cases, > the large number of cases l > ike these indicates a high likelihood that there is significant misuse of > the waiting list. Specifically, some organizations are likely being > dishonest in projecting their need for IPv4 space with the intent of > receiving blocks off the waiting list so that they can sell them one year > after receiving them. In the case of multiple startups, some organizations > that receive blocks on the waiting list subsequently perform a 8.2 > merger/acquisition, allowing them to sell the blocks even before the one > year waiting period. > > > > The problem is serious enough that the ARIN Board of Trustees has > suspended issuance of number resources while a solution to this problem is > found, and it is unfair to organizations with legitimate need on the > waiting list that they are being crowded out and delayed by those looking > to game the system. > > > > Policy Statement: > > > > Actual Text: > > > > 4.1.8. Unmet requests > > > > In the event that ARIN does not have a contiguous block of addresses of > sufficient size to fulfill a qualified request, ARIN will provide the > requesting organization with the option to specify the smallest block size > they'd be willing to accept, equal to or larger than the applicable minimum > size specified elsewhere in ARIN policy. If such a smaller block is > available, ARIN will fulfill the request with the largest single block > available that fulfills the request. If no such block is available, the > organization will be provided the option to be placed on a waiting list of > pre-qualified recipients, listing both the block size qualified for and the > smallest block size acceptable. > > > > New Text: > > > > 4.1.8. Unmet requests > > > > In the event that ARIN does not have a contiguous block of addresses of > sufficient size to fulfill a qualified request, ARIN will provide the > requesting organization with the option to specify the smallest block size > they'd be willing to accept, equal to or larger than the applicable minimum > size specified elsewhere in ARIN policy. If such a smaller block is > available, ARIN will fulfill the request with the largest single block > available that fulfills the request. If no such block is available, the > organization will be provided the option to be placed on a waiting list of > pre-qualified recipients, listing both the block size qualified for or a > /22, whichever is smaller, and the smallest block size acceptable, not to > exceed a /22. > > > > Comments: > > > > Timeframe for Implementation: Immediate > > > > Anything Else: By limiting the maximum block size for waiting list > recipients to a /22, the financial incentive to misuse the waiting list to > receive blocks with the intent to sell them will be drastically reduced. > The majority of waiting list requests are for smaller block sizes, and > these requests will be more readily met as the abusers will no longer be > crowding out the legitimate organizations with need. The original intent of > the waiting list to help smaller organizations and new entrants will be > realized. RIPE, APNIC and LACNIC do not have waiting lists, but they each > have an emergency pool geared toward new recipients with a /22 limit which > has largely curtailed abuse. Organizations that genuinely qualify for > larger blocks can still obtain these in the marketplace through 8.3 > transfers. > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-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: > > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > > ------------------------------ > > End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 165, Issue 15 > ****************************************** >
_______________________________________________ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
