ARIN XIX Public Policy Meeting Day One Notes - 23 April 2007 [Archived]

Meeting Called to Order

Speaker: Ray Plzak, ARIN President and CEO

Transcript

Ray Plzak opened the meeting and welcomed those in attendance.

Ray began the first day of the ARIN XIX Public Policy Meeting by making meeting-related announcements and introducing those present from the ARIN Board of Trustees, the ARIN Advisory Council, and the Number Resource Organization (NRO) Number Council. He also acknowledged those colleagues from the other Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) in attendance and introduced ARIN’s directors. Ray noted that other features of the meeting included the Registration and Billing Services Help Desks, the Cyber Café, and a First Timer Lunch.

He continued with the following announcements:

• 144 total registered attendees, including approximately 62 first-time attendees.
• Attendance is comprised of 113 attendees from 20 different U.S. states and Puerto Rico, 3 attendees from 2 Canadian provinces, 3 attendees from 2 locations in the Caribbean and North Atlantic Islands, and 25 attendees from 13 different countries outside the ARIN region.
• Thank you to ARIN XIX network connectivity sponsor Centennial of PR, and JW & Associates which assisted Centennial with the network. In addition, Ray thanked Gauss Research Laboratory which, through its special participation, helped to bring the 8th Annual Foosball Tournament to meeting attendees.
• 8th Annual Foosball Winners
  • First Place - Raúl Echeberría and Bob Stratton
  • Second Place - Leo Bicknell and Abram Thielke
  • Third Place - Axel Pawlik and Owen DeLong
  • “Bringing Up the Rear” Award - Raimundo Beca and Sam Mader
• First-Timer Lunch Raffle Winner - Bernadette Lewis
• Reviewed rules of discussion to be followed throughout the meeting.

Ray reviewed the meeting agenda and the printed materials given to each attendee. He then introduced Steve Ryan, ARIN Counsel, to speak about a litigation matter involving ARIN.

At the beginning of the meeting, approximately 114 people were in attendance.

John Curran, as Chairman of the Board, moderated discussions throughout the day.

[ARIN offered the opportunity for remote participation throughout the meeting. Comments from remote participants are read aloud at the meeting and are integrated into the meeting report. There were approximately 16 individuals viewing the meeting webcast throughout the proceedings, and 12 registered remote participants.]

The Internet in the Caribbean

Speaker: Bernadette Lewis, Secretary General, Caribbean Telecommunications Union (CTU)

Presentation: PDF

Transcript

Bernadette Lewis began by showing a video to the attendees to provide some basic information about the Caribbean region, and then continued her presentation with an Information and Communication Technology (ICT) scorecard for the Caribbean and discussed methodologies currently being used or investigated to improve that score.

Highlights:

• Need departure from partisan politics and demonstration of political will, as well as pragmatic development of Caribbean models for ICT.
• Building of human capacity is dependent on increasing public awareness of the potential ICT in socioeconomic development
• Cooperation is needed in many areas: regional cooperation to establish infrastructure and appropriate systems; cultivation of public/private sector partnerships; and general pooling of resources and sharing of experiences.
• Caribbean IGF plans include the development of a regional draft IG Policy framework and the identification and execution of projects. The CTU will take a facilitating and coordinating role in this work.

There were no questions or comments from the floor.

Regional PDP Report

Speaker: Richard Jimmerson, Director of External Relations

Presentation: PDF

Transcript

Richard Jimmerson presented a summary of policy developments and discussions for ARIN and then for the other RIR regions. Policy issues common among more than one region include:

• IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal
• 12-Month Allocation Period
• eGLOP (Multicast Address Space)
• IPv6 HD-ratio to 0.94
• Amend IPv6 assignment and utilization requirements (/56)
• Provider-independent IPv6 assignments for end-users
• Removal of IPv6 requirement for plan to assign 200 /48s and/or removal of requirement for multiple /48s
• Removal of interim status from IPv6 policy
• Consideration of ULA Central

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• A clarification was put forward by Jordi Palet Martinez in regard to the status of two proposals he authored in the APNIC region. He stated that the proposal to remove the requirement for a plan for the assignment of 200 /48s for an initial IPv6 allocation was not abandoned and that he plans to submit a revised version. He also stated that the proposal to establish a ULA Central registry is also under discussion in the APNIC region. Richard Jimmerson asked if someone present from the APNIC staff could provide further clarification. Sam Dickinson, Policy Officer at APNIC, stated that she would need to check on the current status of the proposal addressing the 200 /48 requirement and that the ULA Central proposal had just been received at the end of the previous week.

Internet Number Resource Status Report

Speaker: Leslie Nobile, ARIN Director of Registration Services

Presentation: PDF

Transcript

Leslie Nobile presented an NRO report on the current status of all IPv4 address, IPv6 address, and Autonomous System number resources as of 31 March 2007. This report is updated quarterly by all the RIRs and provides up-to-date statistics on rates of IPv4, IPv6, and AS number resource consumption.

There were no questions or comments from the floor.

IPv6 IAB / IETF Activities Report

Speaker: Lea Roberts

Presentation: PDF

Transcript

Lea Roberts, provided a presentation developed jointly with Thomas Narten about activities within the IETF related to IPv6. Lea noted that this presentation is not an official IETF report, as there is no official IETF Liaison to ARIN or any RIR.

Highlights:

• Routing and addressing related workshops and mailing list activity has been very active, possibly due to ARIN and other RIRs providing Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 address space. She specifically noted the Routing and Addressing Mailing list (ram@iab.org) at the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) as having much discussion and involvement.
• The SHIM6 Working Group is still finalizing the last details on three core documents, which will be sent to IETF LC and IESG for consideration & approval.
  • “Hash Based Addresses (HBA)” (shim6-hba)
  • “Level 3 Multihoming Shim Protocol” (shim6-proto)
  • “Failure Detection and Locator Pair Exploration Protocol For IPv6 Multihoming” (shim6-failure-detection)
• In general, the work of the IPv6 Working Group is winding down, with a number of documents currently in the RFC Editor queue. Two documents which have not seen a lot of progress, but that still may see some discussion are the “IPv6 Address Allocation to End Sites” and “Centrally Assigned Unique Local Addresses” documents.
• The v6 Operations Working Group has been fairly active with eight active working group documents and seven documents in the RFC Editor queue.
• The DNS Operations Working Group has six active working group documents and one document in the RFC Editor queue.
• The DNS Extensions Working Group has mostly completed its work on DNSSEC, and has a number of documents that are either active or under review by the IESG.

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• The issue of how busy the ram@iab.org mailing list is was raised, with one attendee noting there were many posts to it and another noting that while there was a lot of traffic, there wasn’t much useful discussion.

2007-11 Refinement of ISP Initial Allocation Policy

Speaker: Robert Seastrom - Proposal Author

Introduction:PDF

Presentation:PDF

Transcript

Ray Plzak presented an introduction to the proposal. Highlights included:

• Advisory Council shepherds: Robert Seastrom and Stacy Taylor
• Introduced on PPML on 22 Feb 07, designated as a formal policy on 2 Mar 07. This will be its first discussion at an ARIN meeting. No revisions have been made.
• Presentation of Staff Impact Analysis, Legal Review, Staff Comments, and overview of PPML discussion activity. [see presentation and transcript links above for details]

Robert Seastrom, as the author, continued with the presentation of the proposal. He provided details on the text and rationale of the proposal.

There were no questions or comments from the floor.

End of Discussion:

John Curran took a straw poll to determine the sense of the room. After the tally was conducted, John stated that this information would be provided to the Advisory Council for use in its deliberations.

RIR Update - AFRINIC

Speaker: Didier R. Kasole, AFRINIC Board Member

Presentation:PDF

Transcript

Didier Kasole began his presentation by discussing the membership growth at AFRINIC, which has been about 140-percent in 2005 and 2006 versus 2004. He then went on to discuss growth in resource allocations from AFRINIC, noting that likely as a result of the RIR’s training and outreach efforts regarding IPv6, interest in it has grown. Didier continued by presenting information on policy developments, outreach efforts, and on-going projects in the AFRINIC region.

Highlights:

• An MoU was signed with AfNOG during AFRINIC-3. This helped establish support for the 2007 meeting, a fellowship to assist those wishing to attend the AfNOG/AFRINIC event in Abuja, and support of webcast streaming during the event.
• Planning to sign agreement with the Association of African Universities (AAU), and the AfTLD to be signed in Abuja next week.
• Continuing work within the NRO, and working with APNIC on a partnership in its ICONS program.
• Beta testing has begun on MyAFRINIC, which is a web portal to allow LIRs to easily interact with AFRINIC and manage their resources. Other on-going projects include an analysis and review of the AFRINIC fee structure, a tool to provide analysis and statistics on resources allocated/assigned by AFRINIC including routing information which will be known as AIRRS, activation of an RIR for the AFRINIC region, work on Internet Resource Certification, as well as the establishment of VoIP communications between AFRINIC offices.

There were no questions or comments from the floor.

2007-1: Reinstatement of PGP Authentication Method

Speaker: Mark Kosters, Proposal Co-author

Introduction:PDF

Presentation:PDF
Transcript

Ray Plzak presented an introduction to the proposal. Highlights included:

• Advisory Council shepherds: Leo Bicknell, Bill Darte, and Matt Pounsett
• Introduced on PPML on 25 Oct 06, designated as a formal policy on 16 Feb 07. This will be its first discussion at an ARIN meeting. No revisions have been made.
• Presentation of Staff Impact Analysis, Legal Review, Staff Comments, and overview of PPML discussion activity. [see presentation and transcript links above for details]

Mark Kosters, as one of the co-authors of the proposal, continued with the presentation of the proposal. Mark presented the text of the proposal and then discussed the arguments in favor of and against the proposal as well as suggested modifications to the proposal.

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• Leo Bicknell, as one of the ARIN AC shepherds of the proposal, wished to point out that although this proposal did not go through a revision process after the AC accepted it, there was an extensive revision process that occurred before the AC formally accepted this proposal.
• Of the attendees who spoke in favor of the proposal, they primarily noted the wide acceptance and adoption of PGP, that whatever weaknesses may exist in the proposed implementation of PGP it still provides a more secure method of authentication than mail-from, and that this is an area long overdue to be addressed.
• For those who spoke in opposition to the proposal, the reason cited was ARIN’s possible liability in becoming a signer of keys that could be used outside ARIN business,.

End of Discussion:

John Curran took a straw poll to determine the sense of the room. After the tally was conducted, John stated that this information would be provided to the Advisory Council for use in its deliberations.

2007-2: Documentation of the Mail-From Authentication Method

Speaker: Mark Kosters, Proposal Co-author

Introduction:PDF

Presentation:PDF
Transcript

Ray Plzak presented an introduction to the proposal. Highlights included:

• Advisory Council shepherds: Leo Bicknell, Bill Darte, and Matt Pounsett
• Introduced on PPML on 25 Oct 06, designated as a formal policy on 16 Feb 07. This will be its first discussion at an ARIN meeting. No revisions have been made.
• Presentation of Staff Impact Analysis, Legal Review, Staff Comments, and overview of PPML discussion activity. [see presentation and transcript links above for details]

Mark Kosters, as one of the co-authors of the proposal, continued with the presentation of the proposal. Mark presented the text of the proposal and then the rationale.

There were no questions or comments from the floor.

End of Discussion:

John Curran took a straw poll to determine the sense of the room. After the tally was conducted, John stated that this information would be provided to the Advisory Council for use in its deliberations.

2007-3: Documentation of the X.509 Authentication Method

Speaker: Mark Kosters, Proposal Co-author

Introduction:PDF

Presentation:PDF
Transcript

Ray Plzak presented an introduction to the proposal. Highlights included:

• Advisory Council shepherds: Leo Bicknell, Bill Darte, and Matt Pounsett
• Introduced on PPML on 25 Oct 06, designated as a formal policy on 16 Feb 07. This will be its first discussion at an ARIN meeting. No revisions have been made.
• Presentation of Staff Impact Analysis, Legal Review, Staff Comments, and overview of PPML discussion activity. [see presentation and transcript links above for details]

Mark Kosters, as one of the co-authors of the proposal, continued with the presentation of the proposal. Mark presented the text of the proposal and then the rationale.

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• In presenting the proposal, Mark Kosters brought up the question raised by ARIN staff about whether the intent of this proposal was to include this type of authentication within other forms of communication, specifically ARIN elections. Mark asked Bill Woodcock, as one of the other authors of this proposal to respond. Bill replied that he was neither for or against that particular idea and that the proposal did not include authentication methods for ARIN elections in its intent.
• An attendee spoke in favor of this and the other authentication proposals, but was concerned that the proposal does not have a defined mechanism for re-keying when people lose their keys. Another attendee, who also spoke in support of the proposal, specifically addressed this question, replying that he had asked folks in other regions what was happening with their certificate systems, and the answer was that the most common re-keying occurred with the laptop when the key crashed. He went on to say that, with the private key gone, users just went through the process again. The attendee added that in this case, the central authority at the RIR was a closed smaller job than being a general purpose CA.
• An attendee inquired as to what information is going to be required to actually get a key. She cited practice at another RIR and viewed it as excessive. Mark Kosters replied that this was one of the things that the authors struggled with – the idea of it being too prescriptive or not. He continued that this proposal simply establishes a framework for this type of authentication and that the implementation would be left to ARIN staff, as putting it in the proposal was viewed as too prescriptive. Another attendee, speaking in favor of the proposal, also replied saying that with the three authentication methods outlined in these proposals, users could choose the method best suited to their needs.
• An attendee, speaking in favor of the proposal, asked if there was any intent of accepting X.509 certificates signed by other CAs other than ARIN’s or one of the other RIR CAs. John Curran replied that the specific issue was probably out of scope of this particular proposal, explaining that it’s not addressed either way in the policy text. The attendee explained that while she supports the proposal as it exists, she would prefer to see some mention of accepting certificates from the CAs of the other RIRs. Mark Kosters added that whatever CA ARIN uses to associate a resource to a POC, it doesn’t matter, it is that public key that you’re after and tying it to a POC. He continued that it’s up to ARIN staff in terms of the process they want.

End of Discussion:

John Curran took a straw poll to determine the sense of the room. After the tally was conducted, John stated that this information would be provided to the Advisory Council for use in its deliberations.

IPv6 Routing Table Report

Speaker: Cathy Aronson

Presentation:PDF

Transcript

Cathy Aronson gave a presentation on a report on the IPv6 routing table prepared by Gert Döring of SpaceNet AG.

Highlights:

• There are about 900 prefixes in the IPv6 routing table now.
• The experimental 6bone network has gone away, as it was planned to go away in June of last year, and the 6bone prefixes were returned to ICANN/IANA. She noted that as a result, everyone should stop using 3FFE transfer networks and stop giving transit to 3FFE announcements.
• There’s been a consistent Cisco bug for the past three years, where if you inject a number of prefixes by mistake and then you withdraw them, the router never sends a withdraw if all the timing is right and the conditions are right, so those prefixes just stay listed forever. It is believed that this has been fixed in some of the newer versions of code, but not everybody installed the updates.
• There are a total of 708 unique AS numbers visible, with 590 Autonomous Systems that only announce one prefix. However a number are still announcing their /35, despite the policy development where they were increased to a /32, and they’re still advertising both the 32 and the 35. Currently there are also announced 134 /48s and 3 /64s. In looking at allocations from the various RIRs, only 489 allocations are visible in the routing table, which is 42 percent.

There were no questions or comments from the floor.

IPv6 Multihoming BCP

Speaker: Marla Azinger

Presentation: PDF

Transcript

Marla Azinger presented on the issue of best practices for IPv6 multi-homing and traffic engineering, specifically working to develop a solution that will scale globally.

Highlights:

• Discussions and experimental solutions are being worked on within IETF. A document detailing the current possible solutions with their recognized pros and cons is available at www.nro.net, and will be updated with two newer possible solutions being worked on in the IETF community.
• Solutions proposed can be grouped into eight categories, but no clear consensus has yet developed around any single solution, but a number seem to no longer be under discussion.
• Everyone is invited to go to the website links in the presentation and read the draft documents that have been submitted to the IETF. Once familiar with the background, it would be helpful if everyone went to the ram@iab.org mailing list and submitted their input.

There were no questions or comments from the floor.

Legacy Address Space Panel

Moderator: John Curran

Panelists: Bob Antia, Leslie Nobile, Owen DeLong, Ray Plzak, Scott Shackleford, Steve Ryan

Introduction: PDF

Transcript

Ray Plzak made a brief introduction to the purpose and scope of the panel, stating that “legacy address space” was address space that was either allocated directly by the IANA, or by the Internet Registry prior to the Regional Internet Registries, which would include DDN NIC, the SRI NIC, or InterNIC. He went on to describe, based on the data in ARIN’s database, the number of allocations and organizations involved and some statistics about how many of them have been updated since ARIN’s inception.

John Curran then asked the panelists to introduce themselves and state their views on legacy address space in the ARIN region, and what they see the issues are.

The panelists answers may be read in the meeting transcript. A discussion period then took place.

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• John Curran asked Steve Ryan, ARIN Counsel, about the issue he raised of allocation holders who received legacy addresses, but that didn’t necessarily get them through government contracts or Government Furnished Equipment (GFE). Specifically to the point that it might be useful to try to take an approach that entices them to participate in the community and whether that idea was due to the lack of an enforcement mechanism for ARIN or is it because of the liability ARIN entails by trying to exert some enforcement mechanism. Steve Ryan responded that he had thought about what an enforcement method by ARIN to bring in legacy space holders would look like, and that the denial of service by ARIN to legacy space holders would be legally permitted. However, he noted that beyond that, other possible methods had not been thoroughly investigated. He stated that as the community proposes new methods, he would continue to evaluate them.
• John Curran then asked Bob Antia what incentives could be offered to bring these legacy space holders in voluntarily, in terms of signing a Registration Services Agreement (RSA) or possibly returning all or part of address blocks that are not being used. Bob Antia replied that while there were some options that were inherently problematic, he believed that it would likely come down to a monetary decision for legacy holders and that what would work would be for someone to offer some sort of reward for turning in the addresses, specifically mentioning approaching Congress to ask for tax breaks for returning space. Steve Ryan responded that, based on his experience, this would not work and that the best incentives would be those that could be enabled by the ARIN community directly.
• Owen DeLong also stated that he’s been working on the ideas of incentives with Bob Antia, and one idea he had was ARIN fees being reduced or waived for a certain period of time on new services, specifically IPv6 address space.
• An attendee asked about the idea of a “registry of last resort,” where the data in the registry would be static, and thus there would be no database maintenance requirements compared to what’s happening right now. He stated that while the idea never saw any real progress, it could address removing this as an area of concern for ARIN. Bob Antia replied that due to the fact that most legacy holders actively ignore ARIN, he did not believe they would participate in this idea either. Bob went on to say that it would be in the best interest of the Internet to bring these people into the existing organizations, instead of shuttling them off on their own and that the idea of reclaiming those addresses and making these organizations participants in current processes would have more value.
• An attendee stated that while legacy space holders might have dealt with any number of pre-RIR registries, the one common thread to deal with them is IANA, and that one possible way forward is to approach the legacy holders as an agent of the IANA to both assist them in keeping records up-to-date and to educate them on the current model to encourage their participation. He went on to say that due to the importance of keeping information accurate and current, the concept of a static registry of last resort is not a good idea.
• Steve Ryan noted that as many of the legacy holders are in the U.S., this problem seems to be viewed globally as an issue that is distinctly U.S.-centric, but that he hoped the ARIN community could develop a consistent program to address legacy holders, that the other RIRs could similarly institute.
• An attendee noted that there didn’t seem to be any estimates on what monetary impact the activities of legacy holders had on ARIN and asked if this is something that makes financial sense to try and fix. Ray Plzak responded that dollar figures are not available, but that Leslie Nobile, ARIN’s Director of Registration Services would be able to provide information on the time and resources required. Leslie Nobile stated that, as 54 percent of legacy registration records with ARIN have been updated, there’s a constant level of work involved in that. She also stated that a big part of ARIN’s staff efforts in regard to legacy space have been directed at preventing the hijacking of address space. She concluded by saying that ARIN staff has spent innumerable hours on stopping those hijackings, and as a result of those two years of intensive efforts, ARIN staff now has new procedures that require them to put a lot of extra effort now into verifying who’s coming into ARIN for resources, that they are who they say they are. John Curran concluded the topic by stating that it appeared it would be a useful point of information to understand what percentage of ARIN’s budget would be saved if ARIN wasn’t providing services to legacy space holders.
• An attendee noted that he didn’t believe the community had ever expressed a good set of goals for bringing legacy holders into the ARIN community. John Curran invited the panel members to share their thoughts on the issue. Owen DeLong stated that he believes the primary goal should be to address that there are allocations that were issued under at least two and probably more different sets of address policy within the ARIN region, and that the community would benefit in having a level of consistency in address policy for allocations in the region. He added that there was a benefit in involving legacy space holders in policy development discussions to ensure no one is disenfranchised. Steve Ryan also made note of important issues like the upcoming scarcity of IPv4 addresses, and that any effort aimed at reclaiming some legacy space so that it could be used more efficiently would be beneficial.
• A discussion then ensued on the topic of the perceived value of IPv4 addresses over time, specifically in a world that had transitioned to IPv6. Some attendees stated that they believed the value would diminish over time, but that they would maintain a perceived value as long as they were in use, which could extend for some time.
• An attendee asked Steve Ryan, ARIN Counsel, about where the concept originated that legacy space holders can have their space “free and in perpetuity” as most contracts can be updated. Steve Ryan responded that based on commonly accepted contract law and practices, in looking at the documents that do exist detailing the allocation of legacy space, the normal elements of contractual requirements don’t seem to be present. He went on to state that ARIN’s current RSA is very clear on this, but that clarity was not present before ARIN’s inception.
• On the issues of legacy space and an upcoming scarcity of IPv4 resources, an attendee stated that in looking at the number of allocation records that have not been updated and the number that do not appear to be routed, there seems to be too much concern in protecting the interests of people or organizations who don’t seem to exist anymore, and that some method should be implemented to reclaim this space. Scott Bradner noted that one of the tasks he was given when taking over the IP Next Generation project was to look at the issue of reclaiming space. The formal report back to the IETF, made approximately fifteen years ago, was that if the community was ever in a position where reclaiming a small percentage of space was viewed as necessary, it wouldn’t really matter in the long term whether the space was reclaimed or not. John Curran asked Scott if he still believed that the conclusion of that report was valid, and Scott replied that he did. Owen DeLong stated that he believed the best path forward was to try and identify the legacy holders that are defunct and reclaim that space, because we could add those prefixes to the Bogon lists which would reduce the number of prefixes that are easily harvested for abuse purposes.
• An attendee asked for confirmation on an action by IANA in the past to reclaim IPv4 address space. Bill Manning responded that he and Suzanne Woolf had engaged in that effort, which resulted in the reclamation of 38 percent of the entire IPv4 pool from allocation holders who were deceased or were organizations that were bankrupt and dissolved. Bill went on to say that he believed this could be done again, and that the issue of reclaiming IPv4 address space when it has little or no value needs to be addressed, and recommended that it should be returned to IANA. He concluded with the statement that IPv4 would continue to be a problem as long as it’s out there, and there needs to be some mechanism to track and reclaim what is not used.
• An attendee asked if the issue with legacy space holders was that they were simply uninformed about ARIN or if some outreach had to occur to have them join in the ARIN community processes. Bob Antia replied that he believed some outreach was necessary and that the perception of ARIN among the legacy space holders was often that they did not know what ARIN was and occasionally was just that ARIN was difficult to deal with. Bob went on to say that he believed the outreach should not just come from ARIN as an organization, but individual ARIN members, and that holders of large blocks of legacy address spaces were not current in their approach to managing it, and that open source tools to assist them in that would be well received.
• An attendee, noting his own discussions with legacy space holders and their different views on IP addresses as property, asked the panel if considering legacy address space property was technically, economically, and legally feasible. John Curran replied that while it was a good question, the answers would not significantly impact the topic of discussion and invited Steve Ryan, ARIN Counsel to respond. Steve Ryan replied that ARIN’s belief is that while a domain name has a secondary value and meaning, and the protection of a trademark, for example, the RIR community has developed a way to keep the costs of interconnection lower because we have not monetized IP addresses in the past. He went on to note that ARIN provides IP addresses at a cost that is a very small percentage of the sale price of the service of interconnection and transport of packets. He concluded by stating that if ARIN were to consider IP addresses as having some inherent monetary value, it would be at the cost of dispensing with the benefits of the current system, and that shouldn’t be done without a very good reason.
• An attendee asked if there has there been a case where a legacy order has transferred the property of some address base to another organization, and that new organization had come to ARIN to register that space within ARIN? As a follow-up he asked that if this has not happened yet, what would be the reaction from ARIN to such a request? Leslie Nobile, ARIN Director of Registration Services, replied that this does happen frequently, and that when it does, the organizations have to follow the transfer policy. She went on to state that if the organizations can provide the legal documentation that describes the transfer of ownership of certain property and ARIN staff can verify it, then the transfer is approved. If the organization come to ARIN and claim that they bought the IP addresses as property, the staff denies the request as the policy clearly says IP addresses are not property. In answer to a question of clarification on that point, Leslie replied that the only reason a transfer is approved is if the organization requesting the transfer actually purchased the equipment and customer base that was the justification of the original allocation. An attendee asked a follow-up regarding the company receiving the transferred resources and the fee structure that would apply since they would have to sign an RSA for what was previously legacy space. Leslie replied that they would need to pay the initial transfer fee and an annual maintenance fee, but that they would not be subject to the fees associated with ISP allocations, as they are brought in as end-users. An attendee added that there are two current policies that deal with reclamation, and both include verbiage that says something like, “if the address space that’s being handed in was legacy, the replacement space would be treated that way as well.” The attendee went on to say that legacy holders just need to negotiate it with ARIN, which has the tools to work with because of those policies.
• Based upon the earlier conversation regarding the benefit of reclaiming IPv4 space, an attendee stated that he believed that if IPv6 is not viable in time, that benefit of reclaiming unused legacy space would increase greatly. Scott Bradner replied that based upon the research he’d been part of, much of the space was noncontiguous, and as a result would be of little value in terms of any large scale deployments.
• David Conrad of IANA stated that IANA is discussing with the RIRs ways to address the registration information of some of the legacy address space, and how to partition it out in a way that makes sense.
• Additional discussion took place on the issue of monetization of IP addresses, and the possible approaches that might be taken to address it in a way beneficial to the community. Discussion also noted the impact on the community if it was not handled well, including problems in routing and aggregation.

RIR Update - APNIC

Speaker: Paul Wilson, Director General, APNIC

Presentation: PDF

Transcript

Paul Wilson started with the presentation of the results of several surveys APNIC had conducted of its membership and stakeholders. He then continued with a presentation of other developments within APNIC and its region. He concluded his presentation by discussing APNIC’s efforts regarding the environment and changes undertaken by staff to reduce the “ecological footprint” of APNIC’s operations.

Highlights:

• APNIC undertakes these independently conducted surveys for the benefit of APNIC’s future planning and operations, in that they provide an understanding of what APNIC’s community members and non-member stakeholders expect. Of the four surveys conducted so far, each has seen a higher level of participation than the previous surveys.
• There is ongoing work with research and development in resource certification, and expect to do some pilot deployment during 2007.
• Public registration statistics are now published in an interactive way through the O3 platform, the same platform used by LACNIC
• Other on-going projects include the Internet Community of Online Networking Specialists (ICONS), and the APNIC Resource Management System (ARMS). A content management system for the website is also in the initial stages.
• Upcoming meetings include APNIC 24 in New Delhi from 29 August - 7 September 2007, in conjunction with the South Asian Network Operators Group (SANOG), and APNIC’s annual meeting with APRICOT from 25 - 29 February 2008 in Taipei, Taiwan.

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• An attendee inquired about additional details regarding the resource certification work that APNIC is doing. Paul Wilson replied that in the pilot, APNIC will be issuing those certificates in accordance with the RFC through MyAPNIC. He added that beyond that, the uses are very experimental due to the lack of secured routing protocols at the moment. He concluded by stating that this would be a demonstration platform that APNIC and the other RIRs could use to assess possible implementation details. Ray Plzak stated that ARIN’s participation in this effort has been at the design level, based on the current direction by the Board of Trustees, and ARIN has been actively engaged in that effort. He added that the implications of what would be involved in adopting it throughout the RIRs and and how that would relate to the business practices of the various RIRs was under evaluation.

2006-7: Changes to IPv6 initial allocation criteria

Speaker: Jordi Palet Martinez, Proposal author

Introduction:PDF

Presentation:PDF
Transcript

Ray Plzak presented an introduction to the proposal.

Highlights:

• Advisory Council shepherds: Marla Azinger, Lea Roberts, and Robert Seastrom
• Introduced on PPML on 11 Oct 06, designated as a formal policy on 13 Oct 07. This will be its first discussion at an ARIN meeting. No revisions have been made.
• Presentation of Staff Impact Analysis, Legal Review, Staff Comments, and overview of PPML discussion activity. [see presentation and transcript links above for details]

Jordi Palet Martinez, as the author of the proposal, continued with the presentation of the proposal. Jordi presented a summary of the issues involved, the text of the proposal and rationale, and addressed the points raised in the staff assessment of the proposal.

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• An attendee asked about the proposal covering ISPs that are only offering IPv6 and not doing any IPv4, specifically how that would work and what they would use as a router ID if they didn’t have any IPv4 addresses. Jordi replied that while that was not the specific problem the proposal was attempting to solve, it would probably be possible by getting the IPv4 addresses from an upstream, rather than from ARIN.
• The concern was raised by some attendees speaking against the proposal that the bar set by this proposal was too low and that conceivably a home owner who was providing access to a neighbor could qualify for a /32. Some attendees also stated that they supported the intent of the proposal, but not the proposed wording as it exists. Jordi replied that was not its intent, and that the definition for “organization” by ARIN would still apply. An attendee, speaking against the proposal, noted that it was his belief that the intent of this proposal could be better handled by dealing with the requirement for a plan to issue 200 /48s and that should be addressed instead.
• An attendee speaking in opposition to the proposal stated there would be changes that could be made elsewhere in the current policy that would better address this and that he also was not sure what the exact problem was that this was seeking to address. The attendee ask Jordi if he was aware of any organization in the ARIN region that has not been able to get a /32 IPv6 allocation. Jordi responded that the idea for this proposal was started at the Open Policy Hour that occurred at the previous ARIN meeting, and that a few people spoke there about not being able to get space. Another attendee agreed that this would be better addressed by a different proposal or significant edits to this one to modify other text.
• Steve Ryan, ARIN Counsel, stated that in regards to the theoretical legal issue brought up by Jordi in his presentation, it was his opinion that he did not see a legal issue for ARIN if it didn’t adopt this policy. He went on to say that he didn’t think current policy was a barrier to entry that would constitute an anti-trust violation.

End of Discussion:

John Curran took a straw poll to determine the sense of the room. After the tally was conducted, John stated that this information would be provided to the Advisory Council for use in its deliberations.

2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications

Speaker: Matt Pounsett, AC Shepherd

Introduction:PDF

Presentation:PDF
Transcript

Ray Plzak presented an introduction to the proposal. Highlights included:

• Advisory Council shepherds: Matt Pounsett and Heather Skanks
• Introduced on PPML on 22 Feb 07, designated as a formal policy on 2 Mar 07. This will be its first discussion at an ARIN meeting. No revisions have been made.
• Presentation of Staff Impact Analysis, Legal Review, Staff Comments, and overview of PPML discussion activity. [see presentation and transcript links above for details]

Matt Pounsett , as one of the AC shepherds and on behalf of proposal author Paul Andersen, continued with the presentation of the proposal. Matt presented a summary of the proposal rationale and intended impact.

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• An attendee asked if it was the intention of this proposal to cover holders of legacy address space. Matt replied that it applies to all requests ARIN receives regarding the transfer of number resources.

End of Discussion:

John Curran took a straw poll to determine the sense of the room. After the tally was conducted, John stated that this information would be provided to the Advisory Council for use in its deliberations.

Open Microphone

Moderator: John Curran, ARIN Chairman of the Board

Transcript

• An attendee asked for comments on changes to the ARIN website that would allow both more interactive help for people who seldom come to ARIN in making requests or submitting information and online programmatic automation for companies that frequently interact with ARIN to submit data such as SWIPs in something like an XML or CRISP format.
• An attendee asked for opinions on how much technical implementation guidance should be submitted as part of a policy proposal and for what shouldn’t be in policy, what is the correct avenue to submit that information for discussion by the community. John Curran replied that the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP) was the correct place to submit technical or implementation suggestions. Ray Plzak also stated that the ACSP was the correct avenue for those types of suggestions and discussions, and noted that while it’s an evolving process, it has already been heavily used. The attendee asked for statistics and information on what has been submitted through the ACSP, and Susan Hamlin responded that information had just recently been posted to the ARIN website.
• An attendee asked for a sense of the room on whether the community, in general terms, thought it was worthwhile having ARIN perform outreach to the legacy space holders. John Curran took a poll of the room on that question and 28 were in favor, six against.
• An attendee from the Caribbean issued an open invitation for those present to come down to the Caribbean and offer suggestions on how to deal with the issues inherent in the region, which include single provider monopolies and geographic isolation.

Closing Announcements and Meeting Adjournment

Speaker: Ray Plzak, ARIN President and CEO

Transcript

Ray Plzak reminded attendees of the hours that the ARIN RSD and Billing Help Desks and Cyber Café were open. He encouraged all attendees to complete the meeting survey available on ARIN’s website. He reminded the audience about the ARIN social that evening, and that Day 2 of the ARIN Public Policy Meeting would begin at 9:00 AM. Ray concluded by extending thanks to the network connectivity and Cyber Café sponsor Centennial of PR. In addition, thanks were also given to Laboratorio Gauss of the University of Puerto Rico for its special participation in the 8th Annual Foosball Tournament .

Sponsors