ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - Last Call (expires in one week)

John_Curran1 · November 9, 2011, 3:33pm

NANOG Community -

    There is an Draft Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers presently in extended
    "Last Call" in the ARIN Policy Development Process. The Last Call
    will run for one more week, and allows an opportunity for anyone in the
    Internet community to provide feedback regarding this proposed
    number resource policy. Feedback, including statements in support
    or opposition, may be sent to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
    "arin-ppml@arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>" (http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
    to join or view archives) A copy of the Last Call announcement,
    including the most recent changes and draft policy text, is attached
    to this email. Feel free to forward this email to anyone in the Internet
    community that you feel may wish to comment in support or opposition
    to this draft policy.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

Leo_Bicknell1 · November 9, 2011, 3:56pm

In a message written on Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 03:33:04PM +0000, John Curran wrote:

    There is an Draft Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers presently in extended
    "Last Call" in the ARIN Policy Development Process. The Last Call
    will run for one more week, and allows an opportunity for anyone in the
    Internet community to provide feedback regarding this proposed
    number resource policy. Feedback, including statements in support

I went and read a fair number of PPML messages via the web interface
as I no longer subscribe. I also read the policy proposal.

I think the AC, and ARIN's policy process in general has come off
the rails. There's a reason why I unsubscribed from PPML, and have
not participated for 2+ years. I don't know exactly where things
went wrong, but somewhere they went very, very wrong.

But I don't have to summarize, Bill Sandiford (an AC Member) already
did that for me:
http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2011-November/023661.html

Which leads me to my thoughts on the process, from two areas:

1) The concept of Inter-RIR transfers is a bad idea. Insuring
   "compatible" rules between RIR's will always be difficult at
   best. There are technical difficulties for the RIR's, such
   as how reverse DNS is handled. Most importantly, after going
   through all the pain of figuring out these details it's unlikely
   to help very many people at all.

2) The process followed to get here is totally broken. Bill hit
   the nail on the head, and it's archived on ARIN's web site:
   Text in Sep: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - revised
   Text in Oct: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - Last Call

   Near as I can tell the feedback in the October meeting made the
   AC want to do a _total rewrite of the entire policy_, which they
   turned around in under a week and shoved directly into the last
   call process.

It's disgusting, and I'm glad I'm no longer involved. It's a mockery of
the policy process ARIN has set up, and I'm baffled to this day why more
folks aren't upset about it.

William_Herrin · November 9, 2011, 4:19pm

Hi folks,

There has been some contentious debate about this draft policy. In
particular, it may provide a path for bleeding IPv4 addresses from
North America to other world regions without requiring reciprocal
access to other regions' IPv4 addresses for North American companies.

If this concerns you, and I hope it does, I urge you to educate
yourself on the matter and then voice your opinion on the ARIN public
policy mailing list.

Reference materials:

The policy as presently drafted:
http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2011-October/023362.html

The proposed policy's draft history:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_1.html

How to subscribe to the ARIN public policy mailing list:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml

A brief selection of issues raised in the debate:

Regards,
Bill Herrin

John_Curran1 · November 9, 2011, 4:28pm

Leo -

  To be clear, the ARIN Advisory Council (ARIN AC) is definitely following
  the current ARIN policy development process. If they weren't, I would be
  obligated to directly intervene.

  It is true that the present Policy Development process allows the AC ample
  latitude in changing the policy proposals, with the requirement that if the
  Advisory Council sends a draft policy to last call that is different from
  the one presented at the public policy meeting, then the Advisory Council
  will provide an explanation for all changes made to the text.

  My message to NANOG was to encourage folks to speak out on the PPML mailing
  list regarding their thoughts on the draft policy, as that is the forum
  where the input will have the most impact. I will note that ARIN also just
  completed an open consultation on a revised Policy Development Process, and
  while it has closed, I will take directly any suggestions that you have for
  changes to that process that you feel are necessary.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

Bandy_Rush1 · November 10, 2011, 6:01am

1) The concept of Inter-RIR transfers is a bad idea. Insuring
"compatible" rules between RIR's will always be difficult at
best.

no need to coordinate rules/policies at all. what we suggested in a/p
three years back was simple. seller must abide by seller's local
selling policy and buyer must abide by buyer's local receiving policy.

randy

William_Herrin · November 10, 2011, 12:39pm

Randy,

Such a process creates a back-door requirement that participating
registries race to the bottom eliminating eligibility requirements for
address recipients. Failure to do so leaves their own registrants at
an unfair disadvantage when trying to get addresses. The approach is,
unfortunately, more simpleminded than it is simple.

But really this discussion belongs on the ARIN PPML where your input
would be most welcome.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

Valdis_Kletnieks · November 10, 2011, 12:51pm

When was the last time this industry turned down a chance to have
a race to the bottom?

</snark>

Bandy_Rush1 · November 10, 2011, 1:28pm

no need to coordinate rules/policies at all. what we suggested in a/p
three years back was simple. seller must abide by seller's local
selling policy and buyer must abide by buyer's local receiving policy.

Such a process creates a back-door requirement that participating
registries race to the bottom eliminating eligibility requirements for
address recipients. Failure to do so leaves their own registrants at
an unfair disadvantage when trying to get addresses.

i am sure the americans who think all address space should righfully be
theirs can dream up paranoid scenarios for anything. but dear canute,
the tide is coming, get over it or get wet.

they do not sell enough enough anti-nausea meds here for me to read the
arin ppml list.

randy

CJ_Aronson · November 10, 2011, 1:38pm

So Randy.. Are you in favor or opposed to 2011-1?

Thanks!
----Cathy

Bandy_Rush1 · November 10, 2011, 1:44pm

So Randy.. Are you in favor or opposed to 2011-1?

against

William_Herrin · November 10, 2011, 1:48pm

i am sure the americans who think all address space should righfully be
theirs can dream up paranoid scenarios for anything. but dear canute,
the tide is coming, get over it or get wet.

Randy,

You're fortunate that you speak for a minority. If you didn't, we'd
tell the bunch of you to go to hell instead of valiantly seeking to
improve the situation in which APNIC finds itself.

they do not sell enough enough anti-nausea meds here for me to read the
arin ppml list.

It's your privilege to make uneducated snipes from afar.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

Bandy_Rush1 · November 10, 2011, 1:51pm

You're fortunate that you speak for a minority.

actually, that time has passed. you're the minority. there are more
non-americans than american rir members, there are more legacy holders
than arin junior vigilantes, ...

observe how the american 'global' proposal flew.

randy

Leo_Bicknell1 · November 10, 2011, 1:56pm

In a message written on Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 02:28:50PM +0100, Randy Bush wrote:

i am sure the americans who think all address space should righfully be
theirs can dream up paranoid scenarios for anything. but dear canute,
the tide is coming, get over it or get wet.

I believe you have made an incorrect assumption as to why some folks
are against transfers. Quite frankly, if it made you (and the rest
of the world) happier I would support a proposal to reclaim all
unused legacy space in the ARIN region and divide 100% of it among
the other RIR's. We'd be better off without it.

The real problem is, if people spent even 10% of the time spent
arguing over how to buy/sell/trade/swap IPv4 space deploying IPv6
space we wouldn't be havng this discussion, as no one would need
any more IPv4 space at this point since we would all be removing
it from our network.

The tide is coming. The tide is wet. The tide is full of IPv6 water.
Get over it.

Bandy_Rush1 · November 10, 2011, 2:04pm

The real problem is, if people spent even 10% of the time spent
arguing over how to buy/sell/trade/swap IPv4 space deploying IPv6
space we wouldn't be havng this discussion, as no one would need
any more IPv4 space at this point since we would all be removing
it from our network.

The tide is coming. The tide is wet. The tide is full of IPv6 water.
Get over it.

i am a measurement type. it's a stretch to call things even slightly
damp. not that i am happy with this. we deployed in the '90s.

randy

David_Conrad3 · November 10, 2011, 4:59pm

Bill,

i am sure the americans who think all address space should righfully be
theirs can dream up paranoid scenarios for anything. but dear canute,
the tide is coming, get over it or get wet.

You're fortunate that you speak for a minority.

I don't think Randy speaks for anyone but himself. Some may, however, agree with him.

If you didn't, we'd
tell the bunch of you to go to hell instead of valiantly seeking to
improve the situation in which APNIC finds itself.

Seriously?

It is this sort of attitude that resulted in me giving up in disgust with the whole RIR circus. Well that and a curious note from ARIN counsel (at the direction of ARIN's board) to my then corporate counsel purportedly "expressing concern" about statements I made in a personal capacity on NANOG. Quite amusing, actually, but still disgusting.

A tiny dose of reality:
- The Internet (and world population as a whole) is growing most rapidly in the Asia/Pacific region.
- There are companies who demand IPv4 addresses for which the combined yearly budgets of all the RIRs amounts to little more than a small fraction of what those companies spend on their lawyers alone.
- APNIC no longer has IPv4 addresses to meet that demand.
- There now at least 4 different organizations offering IPv4 addresses for sale (addrex.net, kalorama.com, tradeipv4.com, ipv4marketgroup.com) who are now participating in an estimated at $6 - $8 Billion market (and that's just legacy space).

And you believe the couple of hundred folks who participate in ARIN are going to stand in the way of those business interests? I might gently suggest it would probably be more useful to figure out how the new market players and the "legacy" RIRs can coexist in a way that doesn't do severe damage to the Internet than it is to discuss how to rearrange the deck chairs in ever more intricate designs in order to try to maintain unjustifiable monopolies.

I might suggest that but as I said, I gave up in disgust. Tell King Canute's advisors I said "hi".

Regards,
-drc

Nick_Hilliard3 · November 10, 2011, 5:29pm

My OCD is screaming at me to point out that King Knut was attempting to show his advisers that even he couldn't control the tides.

Nick

Bandy_Rush1 · November 11, 2011, 4:50am

And you believe the couple of hundred folks who participate in ARIN
are going to stand in the way of those business interests? I might
gently suggest it would probably be more useful to figure out how the
new market players and the "legacy" RIRs can coexist in a way that
doesn't do severe damage to the Internet than it is to discuss how to
rearrange the deck chairs in ever more intricate designs in order to
try to maintain unjustifiable monopolies.

arin control-freak vigilante insanity overwhelmed what's good for the
internet long ago.

randy

Brett_Watson · November 11, 2011, 7:15am

Awesome, so you've solved the multi-homing issues with v6? The RA/DHCPv6 issues? (I'll just leave it at those three).

-b

Christian · November 11, 2011, 9:34am

Lucky rich you to have such capacious v4 connectivity to be worrying about such downstream stuff. The rest of the world is starring at abyss of zero connectivity unless it deploys v6.

Solve that one.

Christian

John_Curran1 · November 11, 2011, 10:47am

David -

  We've got co-existence today for transfers within the ARIN region;
  it is now not uncommon to see ("Sale may be subject to compliance
  with policies of the American Registry of Internet Numbers") on
  various solicitations involving resources registered in the region.

  At present, there is no way to transfer resources in or out of the
  region, and whether that is desirable and under what constraints is
  precisely the question at hand with draft policy ARIN-2011-1. To the
  extent that folks have a view on this matter either in support or
  against, I suggest that you make that view known on the ARIN Public
  Policy Mailing List (ppml). As this policy will have some effect
  on many in the Internet community, it would be best for folks to
  take a moment to provide this important feedback.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN