"Those who do not understand market are doomed to reimplementing it, badly".
How come ARIN has any say at all if A wants to sell and B wants to buy? Trying to fend off the imaginary monopolistic hobgoblin?
Or simply killing the incentive to actually do something about conservation and, yes, reingeneering the network to fix the address space shortage and prefix explosion?
How come ARIN has any say at all if A wants to sell and B wants to
buy? Trying to fend off the imaginary monopolistic hobgoblin?
self-justification for arin's existence, flying people around to lotso
meetings, fancy hotels, ...
at the rirs, income and control are more important than the health and
growth of the internet. basically, the rirs are another case of seemed
like a good idea at the time.
randy
Vadim - We'll run the database anyway you (collectively) want us to...
what policy would you prefer, and can you submit it as a proposal?
(and to answer Randy - the only control over the administration is based
on the policies adopted. Reduce the corpus of applicable policy if that
is your desire.)
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
(and to answer Randy - the only control over the administration is based
on the policies adopted. Reduce the corpus of applicable policy if that
is your desire.)
we created careers for junior policiy weenies. arin and other rirs have
become well-funded playgrounds for the semi-clued who think they can and
should tell others how to run their businesses, operate the internet, ..
tough to put that crap back in the bottle. makes one think that the itu
may not actually be worse.
randy
John - you do not get it...
First of all, I don't want your organization to have ANY policy at all.
Being just a title company for IP blocks is well and good - and can be
easily done at maybe 1% of your budget. Title companies do not tell
people if they can buy or sell, they just record the current ownership.
They do not create controversy or conflict - in fact, their sole reason
for existence is to reduce expenses involved in figuring out who has
rights to what.
Secondly, if you have delusion that you somehow represent me (or other
Internet users), get rid of that delusion. Simply because you don't. I
didn't vote for you, and gave your organization no right to claim to
have my consent - individually or collectively. I'm not bound by any of
your policies, and, as a matter of fact, I have no say in them (and do
not have a wish to participate). Writing a petition to have a policy
changed is something a serf does towards his lord, so I'll spare you the
embarrassment of reading what I have to say to anybody suggesting this
to me.
ARIN as a policy-making body exists solely due to cluelessness of telco
management. If the execs had any clue, they'd realize that there is NO
such thing as owning a block of IP addresses - the real object is the
contractual right to send packets to that address block over their
networks. Because their customers generally want universal
connectivity, they are forced to cooperate with each other - but, as
everybody in this age of NATs, firewalls, and Great Walls knows,
universal connectivity is just a myth. Coverage in connectivity can (and
should) be a competitive discriminator, rather than absolutist
one-size-fits-all regulatory pipe dream.
What they have done is gave control over this right to a third party for
no good reason whatsoever. (Yes, Randy, it did seem like a good idea -
but, just like any other idea involving giving some people policy-making
powers, - it was bound to go sour and start serving interests of these
people rather than the interests of subjects of their rule-making).
ISPs can increase their revenues by selling this right rather than
_paying_ to ARIN for being able to exercise this right. All it takes is
a bunch of reciprocity agreements saying, essentially, "we'll carry
yours if you carry ours". As soon as one large ISP figures that out,
this particular political house of cards will go down, quickly.
With due respect,
--vadim
John Curran wrote:
Randy Bush wrote:
(and to answer Randy - the only control over the administration is based on the policies adopted. Reduce the corpus of applicable policy if that
is your desire.)we created careers for junior policiy weenies. arin and other rirs have
become well-funded playgrounds for the semi-clued who think they can and
should tell others how to run their businesses, operate the internet, ..
Yet most of the bad ideas in the past 15 years have actually come from
the IETF (TLA's, no end site multihoming, RA religion), some of which
have actually been "fixed" by the RIR's.
The RIR's provide uniqueness and have done a good job at that. Who cares how they make the sausage?
- Kevin
First of all, I don't want your organization to have ANY policy at all.
Where'd you get your AS number, again?
John - you do not get it...
First of all, I don't want your organization to have ANY policy at all.
Unfortunately, Vadim, even "No Policy" *is* a policy.
Being just a title company for IP blocks is well and good - and can be
easily done at maybe 1% of your budget. Title companies do not tell
people if they can buy or sell, they just record the current ownership.
They do not create controversy or conflict - in fact, their sole reason
for existence is to reduce expenses involved in figuring out who has
rights to what.
ARIN (and the other RIRs) performs address allocation, registration
services, and membership services. One of the great questions we all
face is how much real number resource policy development will be needed
when you look out 5 to 10 years, in an environment when there's not any
free pool allocations being made for IPv4, and most organizations have
their initial IPv6 allocation. Is there really a need for twice annual
RIR policy meetings and extensive IPv6 awareness outreach work?
If those activities are reduced, and the role of an RIR becomes that of
a title registry, there's no doubt that it can be done with a smaller
organization. Note - you still need to decide where base registry policy
happens (e.g. WHOIS publication/privacy, lawful cooperation, etc.) but
this doesn't need to be in ARIN and could be left to your choice of some
other association and/or determined by each local government).
ARIN as a policy-making body exists solely due to cluelessness of telco
management. If the execs had any clue, they'd realize that there is NO
such thing as owning a block of IP addresses - the real object is the
contractual right to send packets to that address block over their
networks.
In general, telecommunications companies do assert that IP addresses are
provided as a component of service and that there is no ownership right
therein. This is fairly common in most contracts for ISP services.
ISPs can increase their revenues by selling this right rather than
_paying_ to ARIN for being able to exercise this right. All it takes is
a bunch of reciprocity agreements saying, essentially, "we'll carry
yours if you carry ours". As soon as one large ISP figures that out,
this particular political house of cards will go down, quickly.
ISPs are already bundling this right (to use IP addresses) into their
service contracts. I agree 100% that it would not be difficult at all
for them to self-assert the IP addresses that they'll be using to one
another (particularly post free pool depletion w.r.t IPv4) and have no
need for an Internet Registry system. If that's how the community wants
to do it and the result provides for effective management of the address
space, then I think that's a great outcome: i.e. as always, there's no
reason for ARIN to exist unless it serves a useful role to the community.
For the present, the administration of the current needs-based allocation
policy, the policy development process, and online automation work doesn't
seem happen without a regional registry and involved community to drive it.
With due respect,
Noted.
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
Because that portion of the address-using community, people just like
you, that shows up and participates in ARIN's policy process has its
collective brain wrapped around the concept of "justified need."
That's how we've always allocated addresses, even before ARIN's
inception, and that's how we continue to do it.
And in complete fairness - why should folks who received vast tracts
of addresses for little or no cost under a justified-need regime now
have free reign to monetize their sale? It's one thing for B to pay A
to re-architect part of his network in a way that shakes loose some
addresses. It's quite another for A and B to swap addresses like it
was a futures market.
If you would have the "justified need" regime change, you have to
learn it's history, how and why it came to be. And then you have to
show up, subscribe to the PPML list, keep up with it, and advocate
intelligently for new policy. And you have to bring people with you
who are willing to make the same time investment. ARIN listens, but
they listen to the folks who make the effort.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
John - you do not get it...
vadim, i assure you curran gets it. he has been around as long as you
and i. the problem is that he has become a fiduciary of an organization
which sees its survival and growth as its principal goal, free business
class travel for wannabe policy wonks as secondary, and and the well-
being of the internet as tertiary. they're just another itu, except the
clothing expenses are lower and the decision making process pretends to
be more open, but isn't.
and the drying up of the free source of integers which they lease to us
for hefty fees is pretty scary to these organizations. and, as they
were kinda forced to give out /32s in ipv6 space or be seen to be
inhibiting the deployment of ipv6, a lot of folk will not be coming back
for more v6 for a loooong while.
so the rirs are desperately seeking means whereby they can suck more
blood from the industry. and the industry blood is getting thinner and
thinner, with the telcos redirecting their margin destroying talents
from voice to data.
how much should we be forced to pay for leasing integers that came for
free? how much is the actual registry work (whois and in-addr) worth
and why does a larger prefix cost more? the registry financial scam has
never been adjusted for reality.
and why in hell would i trust these organizations with any control of
my routing via rpki certification? they have always said thay would
never be involved in routing, but if they control the certification
chain, they have a direct stranglehold they can use to extort fees.
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 strongly. and folk who think that would
not have scaled, need to know that the netsol lowball solution was mark
and scott in a basement with a sun3 and a 56k line.
if the iana could get out from under lawyers and domainer greed, and go
back to simply being bookkeeper for the internet, they could do the
automated solution today. well, with some months of setup. and we
could get rid of 95% of the costs the rirs are sucking from our thinning
bloodstreams. or a gutsy rir could lead the way. fat chance.
randy
Yet most of the bad ideas in the past 15 years have actually come from
the IETF (TLA's, no end site multihoming, RA religion), some of which
have actually been "fixed" by the RIR's.
no, they were fixed within the ietf. that's my blood you are taking
about, and i know where and by whom it was spent.
the fracking rirs, in the name of marla and and lee, actually went to
the ietf last month with a proposal to push address policy back to the
ietf from the ops. and they just did not get thomas's proposal to move
more policy from ietf back to ops.
randy
First of all, I don't want your organization to have ANY policy at all.
Where'd you get your AS number, again?
sri
If the allocation and reassignment of address space has no policy associated
with it, then there's no doubt that most of the registry functions can be
automated, and there's no need for the associated policy development process,
public policy meetings, travel, conference calls. Quite a bit of savings
available there, but the community first has to decide on permanent policy
(or lack thereof 
for that automated world before we can reap the savings.
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
If the allocation and reassignment of address space has no policy
associated with it, then there's no doubt that most of the registry
functions can be automated, and there's no need for the associated
policy development process, public policy meetings, travel, conference
calls. Quite a bit of savings available there, but the community
first has to decide on permanent policy (or lack thereoffor that
automated world before we can reap the savings.
when the 'community' is defined as those policy wannabes who do the
flying, take the cruise junkets, ... this is a self-perpetuating
steaming load that is not gonna change.
one start would be for arin to have the guts not to pay travel expenses
of non-employees/contractors.
randy
good thing SRI is still around. wonder what they would say if
asked about the ASNs (and prefixes) they handed out way back when...
--bill
And in complete fairness - why should folks who received vast tracts
of addresses for little or no cost under a justified-need regime now
have free reign to monetize their sale?
All of the real estate in my part of New York traces back to Military
Tract so and so. In the 1790s the state allocated two million acres
on a justified-need basis, with the rule being that if you were a
Revolutionary War veteran, that justified you getting 600 acres, free.
You had to provide your own mule.
Once the lots were all handed out, in subsequent transfers, nobody
justified anything. If you want to sell and I want to buy, that's
that and the county records it for a nominal clerical fee. You will
doubtless find similar histories all over the country. IPv4 space is
rapidly nearing the end of the homesteading era, and I suspect you're
going to have as much luck insisting that future transfers obey the
historic rules as my town would have had insisting that owners could
subdivide only if they were selling to other veterans.
To firm up my example of A selling to B a little, I was assuming there
was nothing wrong with B other than that ARIN wasn't satisfied with
the documentation they provided to show why they needed a /20. Maybe
they're a startup, their VCs don't want them leaking their plans, and
don't see why anyone needs any justification other than the bill of
sale from A. (Yes, I realize there's ways to finesse this particular
scenario. It's an example.) There's nothing hijacked here, the space
wasn't allocated to anyone other than A who for some reason, such as
loss of a customer, doesn't want it any more.
Are networks going to treat this the same as someone hijacking space
and hosting malware or sending fake drug spam? Really? From what I
can tell, unless a range is emitting actively annoying traffic,
there's no pushback about routing it at all.
R's,
John
PS: If you disagree, tell me about 130.105.0.0/16, which belongs to the
long defunct Open Software Foundation.
the fracking rirs, in the name of marla and and lee, actually went to
the ietf last month with a proposal to push address policy back to the
ietf from the ops. and they just did not get thomas's proposal to
move more policy from ietf back to ops.
and, to continue the red herring with jc, i bet you 500 yen that arin
paid their travel expenses to go to maastricht nl to do this stupid
thing.
randy
If the allocation and reassignment of address space has no policy
associated with it, then there's no doubt that most of the registry
functions can be automated, and there's no need for the associated
policy development process, public policy meetings, travel, conference
calls. Quite a bit of savings available there, but the community
first has to decide on permanent policy (or lack thereof
automated world before we can reap the savings.when the 'community' is defined as those policy wannabes who do the
flying, take the cruise junkets, ... this is a self-perpetuating
steaming load that is not gonna change.
In theory, it's quite realistic to see it changing for IPv6 over time,
since there is remarkable abundance even just the existing allocations
made to date; we've no doubt already issues more IPv6 space that the
entire Internet will need, and the only reason that an organization gets
space from an RIR is the implication that such space will be routable.
If ISPs were to hypothetically charge for use of a non-provider issues
prefix and figure out a way to settle up for the routing impact, then
there is already plenty of IPv6 space issued today, and one could seek
an allocation from nearly anyone and know the cost for it be useable.
Getting started via IPv6 would probably be easier than IPv4, but once
running if shouldn't be too hard to make work for both. You can then
completely eliminate routing driven constraints from the system, and
get very close to vending machine with a pull handle for getting more
addresses...
one start would be for arin to have the guts not to pay travel expenses
of non-employees/contractors.
ARIN Suggestion process: <https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/index.html>
If you submit it, I will bring it to the Board for consideration. In fairness,
I will tell you that I'll also recommend to the that we continue to pay for the
travel for the Advisory Council, unless and until there is no need for a policy
development process.
/John
one start would be for arin to have the guts not to pay travel
expenses of non-employees/contractors.ARIN Suggestion process:
<https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/index.html>If you submit it, I will bring it to the Board for consideration. In
fairness, I will tell you that I'll also recommend to the that we
continue to pay for the travel for the Advisory Council, unless and
until there is no need for a policy development process.
thanks for reaffirming that talking to arin is a waste of time.
randy
If you're going to recommend that we not pay for travel for the
ARIN AC, I'm going to recommend otherwise and point out that the
AC members need to hear from the community, and that's often in
person and at the joint ARIN/NANOG meetings, etc. I can't speak
to the strength of your arguments for eliminating travel, but I
will carry them to the Board as well, if you use the suggestion
process.
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN