Hi Folks,
I am needing to renumber some core infrastructure - namely, my
nameservers and my resolvers - and I was wondering if the collective
wisdom still says heck yes keep this stuff all on seperate subnets away
from eachother? Anyone got advice either way? Should I try to give
sequentia
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 1:49 AM, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
> On 15 aug 2010, at 20:05, Randy Bush wrote:
>> rfc1918 packets are not supposed to reach the public internet. once you
>> start accommodating their doing so, the downward slope gets pretty steep
>> and does not end in a nice place.
>
> I
On 15 aug 2010, at 20:05, Randy Bush wrote:
>> What's the current consensus on exempting private network space from
>> source address validation? Is it recommended? Discouraged?
>>
>> (One argument in favor of exceptions is that it makes PMTUD work if
>> transfer networks use private address s
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Aug 15, 2010, at 9:20 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> ARIN fees and budget are a member concern, not a public concern.
>>
>> I seem to recall that attitude was how ICANN first started t
[attribution removed, as I lost track of who said what]
> > Do you now. Unfortunately, the plain language of the LRSA does not
> > respect your belief.
> >
> > ARIN makes only two promises about the application of existing and new
> > ARIN policies to LRSA signatories: "ARIN will take no action t
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 3:03 PM, John Curran wrote:
> The last round of improvements to the LRSA (version 2.0) added several
> circumstances that result in pre-contract status quo, and additional
> ones could be added if the community wants such and the Board concurs.
John,
I noticed and I ap
On Aug 15, 2010, at 12:51 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:44:18 EDT, Owen DeLong said:
>> You and Randy operate from the assumption that these less certain rights
>> somehow exist at all. I believe them to be fictitious in nature and
>> contrary to the intent of number
All (and especially Mr. Curran),
Would the policy process be an appropriate venue for a proposition to
change the ARIN mission, restricting it's activities exclusively to
registration services while requiring a reduction in fees and budget?
Best regards, Jeff
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:35 AM, O
On Aug 15, 2010, at 11:08 AM, Brett Frankenberger wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:44:18AM -0400, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> You and Randy operate from the assumption that these less certain
>> rights somehow exist at all. I believe them to be fictitious in
>> nature and contrary to the intent
On Aug 15, 2010, at 9:20 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> ARIN fees and budget are a member concern, not a public concern.
>
> Oh really? The money ARIN spends managing the public's IP addresses
> (and how it collects that money and the privile
On 15/08/2010 18:02, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Valdis Kletnieks:
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 18:46:49 +0200, Florian Weimer said:
And that connection that's trying to use PMTU got established across the
commodity internet, how, exactly? ;)
ICMP "fragmentation needed, but DF set" messages carry the a
On 8/15/10 6:25 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Randy Bush wrote:
when the registry work was re-competed and taken from sri to netsol (i
think it was called that at the time), rick adams put in a no cost
when we (sri) lost the defense data network nic contract in may '91,
disa awa
On 8/13/2010 19:55, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> when the registry work was re-competed and taken from sri to netsol (i
> think it was called that at the time), rick adams [0] put in a no cost
> bid to do it all with automated scripts. hindsight tells me we should
> have supported that much more strongl
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> when the registry work was re-competed and taken from sri to netsol (i
> think it was called that at the time), rick adams put in a no cost
> bid to do it all with automated scripts. hindsight tells me we should
> have supported that much more strongly.
On Aug 15, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> as a reader of this thread with any memory can clearly see, when i asked
> about a change to the lrsa (with which you clearly disagree), i was told
> to submit a suggestion and to go through the policy process.
>
> when you want a change to the s
>> the bottom line is, changes you like and can justify to yourself with
>> lots of glib words can be made without process. changes you don't
>> like have to go through the policy gauntlet.
> ...
> Changes to ARIN's fees, services, and agreements are done after
> consultation to the ARIN Board, an
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:44:18 EDT, Owen DeLong said:
> You and Randy operate from the assumption that these less certain rights
> somehow exist at all. I believe them to be fictitious in nature and
> contrary to the intent of number stewardship all the way back to
> Postel's original notebook. Poste
On Aug 15, 2010, at 2:55 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> the bottom line is, changes you like and can justify to yourself with
> lots of glib words can be made without process.
> changes you don't like have to go through the policy gauntlet.
Changes to the ARIN's operations are within my authority; I
On Aug 15, 2010, at 11:14 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, the LRSA contains another price which I personally
> consider too high: voluntary termination revokes the IP addresses
> instead of restoring the pre-contract status quo. Without that
> balancing check to the contract, I think
john,
the bottom line is, changes you like and can justify to yourself with
lots of glib words can be made without process. changes you don't like
have to go through the policy gauntlet.
randy
On Aug 15, 2010, at 2:32 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Also, your emphasis above ("_that are not currently being utilized_"),
>> pointed our we need to clarify that it should include "all resources,
>> including those not currently being utilized", i.e. the phrase wasn't
>> intended to exclude *utili
> Also, your emphasis above ("_that are not currently being utilized_"),
> pointed our we need to clarify that it should include "all resources,
> including those not currently being utilized", i.e. the phrase wasn't
> intended to exclude *utilized* resources from "ARIN will take no action"
On Aug 15, 2010, William Herrin wrote:
> Please: don't ask folks to take discussions of public concern to a closed
> forum.
> ...
> ARIN makes only two promises about the application of existing and new
> ARIN policies to LRSA signatories: "ARIN will take no action to reduce
> the services provid
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:44:18AM -0400, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> You and Randy operate from the assumption that these less certain
> rights somehow exist at all. I believe them to be fictitious in
> nature and contrary to the intent of number stewardship all the way
> back to Postel's original note
> What's the current consensus on exempting private network space from
> source address validation? Is it recommended? Discouraged?
>
> (One argument in favor of exceptions is that it makes PMTUD work if
> transfer networks use private address space.)
and this is a good thing?
rfc1918 packet
> In other words, if the ARIN board adopts a policy that legacy
> registrants must install some of their addresses on a router on the
> moon (or perhaps some requirement that's a little less extreme) then
> failing to is cause for terminating the contract (14.b). Which revokes
> the IP addresses (1
* Michael J. Wise:
> On Aug 15, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> What's the current consensus on exempting private network space from
>> source address validation?
>
> BCP38-land MUST *never* see RFC1918-space traffic. Ever.
> Unless you're using a border router as a NAT device, of cou
* Valdis Kletnieks:
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 18:46:49 +0200, Florian Weimer said:
>
>> > And that connection that's trying to use PMTU got established across the
>> > commodity internet, how, exactly? ;)
>>
>> ICMP "fragmentation needed, but DF set" messages carry the a addresses
>> of intermediate
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 18:46:49 +0200, Florian Weimer said:
> > And that connection that's trying to use PMTU got established across the
> > commodity internet, how, exactly? ;)
>
> ICMP "fragmentation needed, but DF set" messages carry the a addresses
> of intermediate routers which generate them (
On Aug 15, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> What's the current consensus on exempting private network space from
> source address validation?
BCP38-land MUST *never* see RFC1918-space traffic. Ever.
Unless you're using a border router as a NAT device, of course
The only way your qu
* Valdis Kletnieks:
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 18:14:41 +0200, Florian Weimer said:
>> What's the current consensus on exempting private network space from
>> source address validation? Is it recommended? Discouraged?
>
> What you do on your internal networks and internal transit is your business.
>
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 18:14:41 +0200, Florian Weimer said:
> What's the current consensus on exempting private network space from
> source address validation? Is it recommended? Discouraged?
What you do on your internal networks and internal transit is your business.
BCP38 talks about where you co
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> ARIN fees and budget are a member concern, not a public concern.
Oh really? The money ARIN spends managing the public's IP addresses
(and how it collects that money and the privileges conferred on the
folks from whom it's collected) are not a
What's the current consensus on exempting private network space from
source address validation? Is it recommended? Discouraged?
(One argument in favor of exceptions is that it makes PMTUD work if
transfer networks use private address space.)
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 15, 2010, at 11:14 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 12:23 AM, John Curran wrote:
>> https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/annual_rprt.html
>> In
>> between meetings, this topic is probably best suited for the arin-discuss
>> mailing
>> list as o
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 15, 2010, at 8:54 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> oh. was section nine of the lrsa done by the policy process?
>> No
>
> so, if we think it should be changed we should go through a process
> which was not used to put it in place. can you even say "level playing
> field?"
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 15, 2010, at 2:38 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Chris Grundemann wrote:
>
>> I highly encourage everyone who has an opinion on Internet numbering policy
>> to do the same.
>
> The same goes for IETF and standards, there one doesn't have to go
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 12:23 AM, John Curran wrote:
> https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/annual_rprt.html
> In
> between meetings, this topic is probably best suited for the arin-discuss
> mailing
> list as opposed to the nanog list.
John,
Is arin-discuss still a closed members-only list?
>> oh. was section nine of the lrsa done by the policy process?
> No
so, if we think it should be changed we should go through a process
which was not used to put it in place. can you even say "level playing
field?"
> Section 9 is present in the LRSA because it matches the RSA (so that
> all a
On Aug 15, 2010, at 7:28 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> oh. was section nine of the lrsa done by the policy process?
No, although it's been presented at multiple Public Policy and Member
meetings, and has enjoying extensive discussion on the mailing lists.
(It's been extensively revised based on the fe
and, may i remind you, that the actual point was
> On Aug 15, 2010, at 1:20 AM, David Conrad wrote:
>> It has been depressing to watch participants in ARIN (in particular)
>> suggest all will be well if people would just sign away their rights
>> via an LRSA,
> Actually, you've got it backwards. T
gosh, i must have completely misread section nine
>>> Seeking contractual rights contrary to IETF RFCs 2008 and 2150?
>> oh, and if you feel that you have those rights by other means than the
>> lrsa, then why is section nine in the lrsa. just remove it.
> Easy to do, you can either:
> 1) C
On Aug 15, 2010, at 6:21 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>>> gosh, i must have completely misread section nine
>> Seeking contractual rights contrary to IETF RFCs 2008 and 2150?
>
> oh, and if you feel that you have those rights by other means than the
> lrsa, then why is section nine in the lrsa. just
>> gosh, i must have completely misread section nine
> Seeking contractual rights contrary to IETF RFCs 2008 and 2150?
oh, and if you feel that you have those rights by other means than the
lrsa, then why is section nine in the lrsa. just remove it. and then
maybe more than a few percent of the
>> gosh, i must have completely misread section nine
> Seeking contractual rights contrary to IETF RFCs 2008 and 2150?
legacy space predates those, and they are not contracts.
randy
On Aug 15, 2010, at 6:06 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>> Actually, you've got it backwards. The Legacy RSA provides specific
>> contractual rights which take precedence over present policy or any
>> policy that might be made which would otherwise limit such rights:
>
> gosh, i must have completely mi
> Actually, you've got it backwards. The Legacy RSA provides specific
> contractual rights which take precedence over present policy or any
> policy that might be made which would otherwise limit such rights:
gosh, i must have completely misread section nine
as we say in our family, i smell cows
On Aug 15, 2010, at 1:20 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> It has been depressing to watch participants in ARIN (in particular) suggest
> all will be well if people would just sign away their rights via an LRSA,
> ...
Actually, you've got it backwards. The Legacy RSA provides specific
contractual rights
48 matches
Mail list logo
