ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

Is this just an argument about the money? Or, are there other issues
("you agree that we can revoke your allocation at any time, for any
reason, as we see fit")?

I'd be curious to know what the justification for such a policy would
be under v6. Even if space were obtained under false pretenses, the
cost of reclaiming it (in terms of lawsuits, etc) is essentially being
shoveled onto the shoulders of others who have received allocations.

It seems like you could run an RIR more cheaply by simply handing out
the space fairly liberally, which would have the added benefit of
encouraging v6 adoption. The lack of a need for onerous contractual
clauses as suggested above, combined with less overhead costs, ought
to make v6 really cheap.

... JG

2

For "fairly liberally" see:
For ISPs: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six51
  You have to be an ISP with a plan to have 200 assignment in 5 years
Non-ISP: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six58
  Be not-an-ISP and have a need for addresses (per other policies,
  you get to choose which one).

In another post you asked essentially "why does ARIN charge so much?"
ARIN doesn't just maintain a notebook of address assignments. There are
HA servers for Whois, IN-ADDR. and IP6.ARPA, research in things like
SIDR, DNSsec, other tools-services, and educational outreach on IPv6.
You suggest that there's much less to argue about in IPv6 policy, but if
you look at current proposals (https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/)
you'll see three that are IPv6-specific, and most of the others cover
both IPv4 and IPv6. So ARIN will continue to maintain the mailing
lists, and hold public policy meetings (with remote participation, so
anyone can participate), and facilitate elections so you can throw the
bums out if you don't like how we do things.

We don't really know how much IPv6 will cost ARIN. If there were
no more debate about allocation policies, and nobody else had any interest
in us (politically or litigiously), and technology were fairly static, then
we
might just do periodic tech refreshes and be fine. I imagine all of those
things will continue for a while, though, and ARIN will need to be
financially solvent through the transition.

Your ARIN fee does not cover me posting here. That's gratis, and
worth it.

Lee

3

Hello Lee ,

From: Joe Greco [mailto:jgreco@ns.sol.net]
It seems like you could run an RIR more cheaply by simply handing out
the space fairly liberally, which would have the added benefit of
encouraging v6 adoption. The lack of a need for onerous contractual
clauses as suggested above, combined with less overhead costs, ought
to make v6 really cheap.

For "fairly liberally" see:
For ISPs: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six51
  You have to be an ISP with a plan to have 200 assignment in 5 years
Non-ISP: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six58
  Be not-an-ISP and have a need for addresses (per other policies,
  you get to choose which one).

In another post you asked essentially "why does ARIN charge so much?"
ARIN doesn't just maintain a notebook of address assignments. There are
HA servers for Whois, IN-ADDR. and IP6.ARPA, research in things like
SIDR, DNSsec, other tools-services, and educational outreach on IPv6.
You suggest that there's much less to argue about in IPv6 policy, but if
you look at current proposals (https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/)
you'll see three that are IPv6-specific, and most of the others cover
both IPv4 and IPv6. So ARIN will continue to maintain the mailing
lists, and hold public policy meetings (with remote participation, so
anyone can participate), and facilitate elections so you can throw the
bums out if you don't like how we do things.

We don't really know how much IPv6 will cost ARIN. If there were
no more debate about allocation policies, and nobody else had any interest
in us (politically or litigiously), and technology were fairly static, then
we
might just do periodic tech refreshes and be fine. I imagine all of those
things will continue for a while, though, and ARIN will need to be
financially solvent through the transition.

Your ARIN fee does not cover me posting here. That's gratis, and
worth it.

Lee

   Thank you for posting those URL's I find a completely different interpretation to the prose there .

<Quote>
6.5.8. Direct assignments from ARIN to end-user organizations
6.5.8.1. Criteria

To qualify for a direct assignment, an organization must:

    1. not be an IPv6 LIR; and
    2. qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation from ARIN under the IPv4 policy currently in effect, or "demonstrate efficient utilization of all direct IPv4 assignments and allocations, each of which must be covered by any current ARIN RSA", or be a qualifying Community Network as defined in Section 2.8, with assignment criteria defined in section 6.5.9.
</Quote>

   Note the ""'d section above . I as a Legacy holder of netname baby-dragons HAVE to have a Signed RSA with Airn or I am NOT , by definition , Qualified .

   I find the present lRSA an indecent attempt to undermine the present Legacy ipv4 holders view of the rights presented them at the time of their Assignments or Allocations . If I could find my OLD Ultrix Tarball or Dump tapes from that era , and they are still readable , I might just be able to present the conversations I had at that time with InterNIC while acquiring that Legacy Space .
   Might someone else have a Document or some other Recorded conversation ?

     Twyl , JimL

ps: Back to haunting mode .

4

  Hello Lee ,

From: Joe Greco [mailto:jgreco@ns.sol.net]
It seems like you could run an RIR more cheaply by simply handing out
the space fairly liberally, which would have the added benefit of
encouraging v6 adoption. The lack of a need for onerous contractual
clauses as suggested above, combined with less overhead costs, ought
to make v6 really cheap.

For "fairly liberally" see:
For ISPs: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six51
  You have to be an ISP with a plan to have 200 assignment in 5 years
Non-ISP: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six58
  Be not-an-ISP and have a need for addresses (per other policies,
  you get to choose which one).

In another post you asked essentially "why does ARIN charge so much?"
ARIN doesn't just maintain a notebook of address assignments. There are
HA servers for Whois, IN-ADDR. and IP6.ARPA, research in things like
SIDR, DNSsec, other tools-services, and educational outreach on IPv6.
You suggest that there's much less to argue about in IPv6 policy, but if
you look at current proposals (https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/)
you'll see three that are IPv6-specific, and most of the others cover
both IPv4 and IPv6. So ARIN will continue to maintain the mailing
lists, and hold public policy meetings (with remote participation, so
anyone can participate), and facilitate elections so you can throw the
bums out if you don't like how we do things.

We don't really know how much IPv6 will cost ARIN. If there were
no more debate about allocation policies, and nobody else had any interest
in us (politically or litigiously), and technology were fairly static, then
we
might just do periodic tech refreshes and be fine. I imagine all of those
things will continue for a while, though, and ARIN will need to be
financially solvent through the transition.

Your ARIN fee does not cover me posting here. That's gratis, and
worth it.

Lee

  Thank you for posting those URL's I find a completely different interpretation to the prose there .

<Quote>
6.5.8. Direct assignments from ARIN to end-user organizations
6.5.8.1. Criteria

To qualify for a direct assignment, an organization must:

  1. not be an IPv6 LIR; and
  2. qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation from ARIN under the IPv4 policy currently in effect, or "demonstrate efficient utilization of all direct IPv4 assignments and allocations, each of which must be covered by any current ARIN RSA", or be a qualifying Community Network as defined in Section 2.8, with assignment criteria defined in section 6.5.9.
</Quote>

  Note the ""'d section above . I as a Legacy holder of netname baby-dragons HAVE to have a Signed RSA with Airn or I am NOT , by definition , Qualified .

You must meet 1 (not be an IPv6 LIR)
You must meet one of the criteria in 2.
Any ONE of:
+ Qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation under current ARIN policy
OR "demonstrate efficient utilization of all direct IPv4 assignments and allocations, each of which must..."
OR be a qualifying Community Network as defined in section 2.8...
  

  I find the present lRSA an indecent attempt to undermine the present Legacy ipv4 holders view of the rights presented them at the time of their Assignments or Allocations . If I could find my OLD Ultrix Tarball or Dump tapes from that era , and they are still readable , I might just be able to present the conversations I had at that time with InterNIC while acquiring that Legacy Space .
  Might someone else have a Document or some other Recorded conversation ?

What, exactly do you find so onerous in the LRSA?
Would it be equally onerous if ARIN simply stopped providing RDNS for you?

Owen

5

Is this just an argument about the money? Or, are there other issues
("you agree that we can revoke your allocation at any time, for any
reason, as we see fit")?

I'd be curious to know what the justification for such a policy would
be under v6. Even if space were obtained under false pretenses, the
cost of reclaiming it (in terms of lawsuits, etc) is essentially being
shoveled onto the shoulders of others who have received allocations.

As I understand it ARIN does not like to reclaim space forcibly for this
very reason. It's costly and they'd much rather resolve matters
amicably and allow people to keep their resources.

It's true that anyone that does accept terms to their IP allocations
opens the possibility up, but recall that ARIN has a open and public
policy making process. If they are going to change something and begin
demanding IPs back from certain holders, if you are attentive to the
process you should have plenty of opportunity to a) find out, and b)
make your displeasure very clear. If you are a member, paying your
dues, you also have the right to vote for those people who make the
final decisions.

But more to the point, how often do you hear that ARIN has decided to
come to any IPv4 holder and just take back their allocation without cause?

It seems like you could run an RIR more cheaply by simply handing out
the space fairly liberally, which would have the added benefit of
encouraging v6 adoption. The lack of a need for onerous contractual
clauses as suggested above, combined with less overhead costs, ought
to make v6 really cheap.

This is the current policy, even with respect to IPv4 to a large degree,
at least for ARIN. As long as you can establish a fairly evident need
for portable address space and can give them a vague plan for allocating
it over time, they'll give you want you want, as long as you can pay the
appropriate (and I feel quite reasonable) annual fees.

6

    Hello Lee ,

From: Joe Greco [mailto:jgreco@ns.sol.net]
It seems like you could run an RIR more cheaply by simply handing
out the space fairly liberally, which would have the added benefit
of encouraging v6 adoption. The lack of a need for onerous
contractual clauses as suggested above, combined with less overhead
costs, ought to make v6 really cheap.

For "fairly liberally" see:
For ISPs: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six51
    You have to be an ISP with a plan to have 200 assignment in 5 years
Non-ISP: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six58
    Be not-an-ISP and have a need for addresses (per other policies,
    you get to choose which one).

Thank you for posting those URL's I find a completely different
interpretation to the prose there .

<Quote>
6.5.8. Direct assignments from ARIN to end-user organizations
6.5.8.1. Criteria

To qualify for a direct assignment, an organization must:

   1. not be an IPv6 LIR; and
   2. qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation from ARIN under the
IPv4 policy currently in effect, or "demonstrate efficient utilization
of all direct IPv4 assignments and allocations, each of which must be
covered by any current ARIN RSA", or be a qualifying Community Network
as defined in Section 2.8, with assignment criteria defined in section
6.5.9.
</Quote>

    Note the ""'d section above . I as a Legacy holder of netname
baby-dragons HAVE to have a Signed RSA with Airn or I am NOT , by
definition , Qualified .

The section you quoted is the second of the three-part "or" statement.
Unfortunately, recent policy changes have made a mess of that text, so
I'll offer an edited version that has the same meaning but is much clearer:

"6.5.8.1. Criteria

To qualify for a direct assignment, an organization must:

   1. not be an IPv6 LIR; and
   2. one (or more) of the following:
         1. qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation from ARIN under
            the IPv4 policy currently in effect, or
         2. demonstrate efficient utilization of all direct IPv4
            assignments and allocations, each of which must be covered
            by any current ARIN RSA, or
         3. be a qualifying Community Network as defined in Section 2.8,
            with assignment criteria defined in section 6.5.9."

IOW, even if you don't qualify under (b)(2) because you haven't signed
an LRSA for your legacy space, you can still qualify under (b)(1) or (b)(3).

Now, let's look at how one qualifies for (b)(1):

"4.3.2. Minimum assignment
4.3.2.1 Single Connection
The minimum block of IP address space assigned by ARIN to end-users is a
/20. If assignments smaller than /20 are needed, end-users should
contact their upstream provider.
4.3.2.2 Multihomed Connection
For end-users who demonstrate an intent to announce the requested space
in a multihomed fashion, the minimum block of IP address space assigned
is a /22. If assignments smaller than a /22 are needed, multihomed
end-users should contact their upstream providers. When prefixes are
assigned which are longer than /20, they will be from a block reserved
for that purpose.
4.3.3. Utilization rate
Utilization rate of address space is a key factor in justifying a new
assignment of IP address space. Requesters must show exactly how
previous address assignments have been utilized and must provide
appropriate details to verify their one-year growth projection. The
basic criteria that must be met are:

    * A 25% immediate utilization rate, and
    * A 50% utilization rate within one year.

A greater utilization rate may be required based on individual network
requirements. Please refer to RFC 2050 for more information on
utilization guidelines."

So, if you are multi-homed, you would need a 25-50% utilization of a
/22, or 256-512 hosts; if you are single-homed, you would need a 25-50%
utilization of a /20, or 1024-2048 hosts.

That is an extremely low bar for any org to automatically qualify for a
IPv6 /48 (and a slot in every DFZ router).

I find the present lRSA an indecent attempt to undermine the present
Legacy ipv4 holders view of the rights presented them at the time of
their Assignments or Allocations . If I could find my OLD Ultrix
Tarball or Dump tapes from that era , and they are still readable ,
I might just be able to present the conversations I had at that time
with InterNIC while acquiring that Legacy Space .
    Might someone else have a Document or some other Recorded
conversation ?

If you have any documents or recordings that show ARIN has _any_
existing contractual obligations to you regarding your legacy space,
either directly or as legal successor of some other organization, please
present it. I'm sure ARIN's legal counsel would be quite interested,
but AFAIK no legacy holder has _ever_ been able to do so.

Until such time as someone proves otherwise, we must assume that ARIN
has _no_ obligations to you, and they could (if the community so
desired) delete your unpaid, uncontracted registration from their
database and assign/allocate those numbers to some other party, and
there's not a damn thing you could do about it other than waste lots of
money on a lawsuit you'd undoubtedly lose. Signing an LRSA protects you
against that possibility--forever--at minimal cost.

S