Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 08 October 2010 [Archived]

Atlanta, GA

Attendees:

• John Sweeting, Chair
• Scott Leibrand (SL), Vice Chair
• Dan Alexander (DA)
• Cathy Aronson (CA)
• Marla Azinger (MA)
• Marc Crandall (MC)
• Bill Darte (BD)
• Owen DeLong (OD)
• David Farmer (DF)
• Stacy Hughes (SH)
• Chris Morrow (CM)
• Bill Sandiford (BS)
• Heather Schiller (HS)
• Robert Seastrom (RS)
• Tom Zeller (TZ)

Minute Taker

• Einar Bohlin

ARIN Staff:

• John Curran, President & CEO
• Nate Davis, Chief Operations Officer
• Leslie Nobile, Director, Registration Services

Board:

• Lee Howard, Secretary

Guest:

• Ben Edelman, Assist. Professor Harvard Business School - Negotiation, Organizations, & Markets Unit

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. EDT. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Bashing

The Chair called for comments. There were none.

3. Approval of the Minutes

It was moved by BD, and seconded by RS, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of September 16, 2010, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

4. Draft Policy 2010-8: Rework of IPv6 Assignment Criteria

DF stated he would like to keep this draft policy on the AC’s docket so he can continue to work on it. The Chair called for any objections. There were no objections.

5. Draft Policy 2010-9: IPv6 for 6rd

It was moved by MA and seconded by RS that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXVI Public Policy Meeting, or on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List, having reviewed the comments collected, and noting that the Policy Development Process has been followed, abandons Draft Policy 2010-9: IPv6 for 6rd. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The Chair called for discussion. CA pointed out that this policy meets a specific need, where 2010-12 may need work. SH believes 2010-12 is better understood, but admitted that many did not understand this topic at all. HS supports abandoning this draft. CA believes 2010-12 needs too much work to advance it at this time, and that 2010-9 is closer to being ready.

SL suggested discussing 2010-12 before discussion 2010-9 on the agenda. The Chair asked if anyone objected to discussing Item 8. Draft Policy 2010-12: IPv6 Subsequent Allocation, before the current item. There were no objections.

The Chair stated they would go thru the agenda in order, and discuss this item after discussion of Item 8.

6. Draft Policy 2010-10: Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post-Exhaustion

BD suggested revising the second sentence of the second paragraph as follows: “Eligible address space includes addresses that are not designated as “special use” by an IETF RFC or addresses allocated to or held by an RIR unless they are being returned by the RIR that they were originally allocated to.” He explained this revision is to incorporate anything held by an RIR that isn’t special use.

He then suggested revising paragraph four with the following: “An RIR is considered at exhaustion when the inventory is less than the equivalent of a single /8 and is unable to further assign address space to its customers in units equal to or shorter than the longest of that RIR’s policy defined minimum allocation unit.” BD noted some said it could be a fixed /24, or better language. He suggested leaving as-is, if it is appropriately worded.

It was moved by BD, and seconded by RS, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXVI Public Policy Meeting, or on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List, having reviewed the comments collected, and noting that the Policy Development Process has been followed, finds Advisory Council and Community support for Draft Policy 2010-10: Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post-Exhaustion as revised and moves to it to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. HS noted that the first edit was to cover the various registry space, and asked if the issue with various registry space will get sorted soon. Nate Davis stated it would be within two or three weeks.

HS referred to the “equal to or shorter than…” text in Section 4, stating that there were two RIRs that have a minimum of an IPv4 /32, and asked how that could possibly work. HS noted that a suggestion was made during ARIN XXVI to change the text to a fixed /24. OD and SH agreed with the suggestion. SL suggested returning /32s to the IANA. HS suggested revising the text to read the particular RIR’s minimum allocation unit.

BD suggested a second edit for Section 4: “An RIR shall be considered at exhaustion when the inventory is less than the equivalent of a single /8, and the RIR is unable to further assign address space to its customers in units equal to or shorter than that particular RIR’s policy defined minimum allocation unit.”

SL noted that the AC was wordsmithing a global policy proposal, and suggested waiting until after RIPE’s meeting in November. DF suggested forwarding the edited text to last call, but could not support the motion because of the transfer section. He stated it would not pass in the APNIC region. BD suggested an extended last call period, possibly until after RIPE’s meeting in November.

OD objected to the suggested text for Section 2; stating there was discussion of the various registry space. Leslie Nobile noted that the IANA legacy space records will not change at IANA, or at ARIN, rather there will be placeholder records.

SL and OD suggested further discussion of the matter on the AC’s mailing list. The Chair agreed, requesting assistance from ARIN staff for clear language regarding the IANA and the RIRs.

OD moved to table the discussion, and SL seconded the motion. The Chair called for objections, there were no objections. The Chair stated this item was tabled for further discussion on the AC’s mailing list.

Mr. Edelman left at this time (3:44 p.m. EDT).

7. Draft Policy 2010-11: Required Resource Reviews

MC reviewed the Public Policy Meeting (PPM) discussions, noting that some community members questioned the need for this policy, and pointed out that ARIN can do these reviews. MC noted OD’s desire to force these reviews and suggested working on the text. OD noted a lack of consensus, and ARIN’s assurance about being more open about the review process.

It was moved by OD, and seconded by CA, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXVI Public Policy Meeting, or on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List, having reviewed the comments collected, and noting that the Policy Development Process has been followed, abandons Draft Policy 2010-11: Required Resource Reviews. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

OD agreed to send text to ARIN staff regarding the outcome of the motion.

8. Draft Policy 2010-12: IPv6 Subsequent Allocation

It was moved by MA, and seconded by HS, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXVI Public Policy Meeting, or on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List, having reviewed the comments collected, and noting that the Policy Development Process has been followed, finds Advisory Council and Community support for Draft Policy 2010-12: IPv6 Subsequent Allocation and moves to it to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. DF stated he did not support the text as written, noting it needed editing. CA noted that there were concerns that this was too open, but liked this version better. Leslie Nobile noted the lack of criteria. OD stated that normally he is liberal about IPv6, but this text is too liberal. RS suggested that the space be made temporary by having it from a dedicated block, across the RIRs if possible.

DA asked if a cap was needed. Several AC members were in favor of a cap. OD stated he preferred a cap, and a sunset clause. Discussion ensued of what the cap should be, a /24, or something else. DA suggested that the space be allowed to be used later for native connectivity.

MA spoke against making it strictly temporary; transition could take a long time. She noted that a specific community member went to her at break during the PPM and said this is desperately needed right now.

BD noted that there are no other transition technologies currently at the IETF, and suggested moving 2010-9 forward. CA agreed that policy was needed now. CM stated that the long-term goal is native IPv6 and, if this policy moves forward, the customer prefix has to be something larger than a /64. He stated it is up to the ISP to figure out the prefix size for their customer, and suggested fixing the overall subsequent allocation policy problem (6rd, wireless, new deployment). OD noted that his company wants this to pass, and that they would request a /16, however, that is too big of a prefix. He felt that RIRs should not be handing out /16s. TZ pondered why it would be important that the space get returned. He suggested looking at the individual issues, and then vote them up or down. CM suggested adding a maximum.

The President noted that transition does not necessarily mean ‘temporary’, and that this space may never come back. Some plans never launch. Some percentage of these will not even get deployed, so there is some value in having ARIN review the utilization. SL felt strongly that something go forward today; noting that something needs to be done about subsequent allocations as well. A cap limits the harm, either a /24 or a /28 are fine. RS greatly preferred a /24 over a /28, since a /24 makes the end-site assignment a /56.

DF suggested minor edits be made to Draft Policy 2010-9 that it be moved forward.

MA left the meeting at this time (4:02 p.m. EDT).

It was moved by TZ, and seconded by CM, to edit the text, and amend Draft Policy 2010-12, as follows:

“Subsequent allocations will also be considered for deployments that cannot be accommodated by, nor were accounted for, under the initial allocation. Justification for the subsequent subnet size will be based on the plan and technology provided with a /24 being the maximum allowed for a transition technology. Justification for these allocations will be reviewed every 3 years and reclaimed if it is not in use. Requester will be exempt from returning all or a portion of the address space if they can show justification for need of this allocation for other existing IPv6 addressing requirements be it Native IPv6 or some other IPv6 network technology.”

The Chair called for discussion. Possible revisions were discussed. OD and RS suggested that the policy stand alone, so that it is clear that this is temporary. Discussion about whether the space should be from the same block or not unused. It was noted that, currently, ISPs get /32s from /29s.

The motion to amend the Draft Policy 2010-12 carried unanimously via roll call.

DF asked if someone can request a /24, and get a /24. They say 6rd, and /56s per end-site. HS notes that the request can be less than a /24.

It was moved by RS, and seconded by OD, to amend the Draft Policy to add the following to paragraph 3:

“All such allocations for transitional technology will be made from a block designated for this purpose.”

The Chair called for discussion. He noted that in the future the use of this specially designated space might not be for transition technology.

The motion to amend the text carried via roll call with 12 in favor, 1 against (TZ) and 1 abstention (SL).

OD suggested removing the sentence that begins: “Requester will be exempt from returning…” He felt the need to deprecate the transitional technology. The Chair noted that other use must then be precluded. RS asked if this new text would stop someone from expanding their initial /32s. Leslie Nobile answered that it would not.

It was moved by TZ, and seconded by OD to amend the text to strike the sentence… “Requester will be exempt from returning…”.

The motion to amend the draft policy carried unanimously via roll call.

The final amended text reads:

“Subsequent allocations will also be considered for deployments that cannot be accommodated by, nor were accounted for, under the initial allocation. Justification for the subsequent subnet size will be based on the plan and technology provided with a /24 being the maximum allowed for a transition technology. Justification for these allocations will be reviewed every 3 years and reclaimed if it is not in use. All such allocations for transitional technology will be made from a block designated for this purpose.”

The motion to send Draft Policy 2010-12 to last call, as amended, carried unanimously via roll.

5. Draft Policy 2010-9: IPv6 for 6rd

The Chair stated that discussion of this item would resume at this time: stating that the motion made previously was to abandon this draft policy. The Chair called for discussion on the motion to abandon. It was the sense of the AC to perform a roll call vote.

The motion to abandon carried unanimously via roll call.

9. Draft Policy 2010-13: Permitted Uses of Space Reserved under NRPM 4.10

It was moved by OD, and seconded by SL, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXVI Public Policy Meeting, or on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List, having reviewed the comments collected, and noting that the Policy Development Process has been followed, abandons for Draft Policy 2010-13: Permitted Uses of Space Reserved under NRPM 4.10. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The Chair called for discussion. It was the sense of the AC that this was the correct way to proceed.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

10. Draft Policy 2010-14: Standardize IP Reassignment Registration Requirements

CA suggested keeping this draft policy on the AC’s docket for further work. There were no objections to CA’s suggestion.

11. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business items. There were no other business items.

12. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:40 p.m. EDT. RS moved to adjourn, and this was seconded by SH. The meeting was adjourned with no objections.