ARIN Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Notes - Tuesday, 24 April 2007 [Archived]

Call to Order and Announcements

Speaker: Ray Plzak, ARIN President and CEO

Transcript

Ray Plzak opened the second day of the ARIN Public Policy Meeting. He thanked network connectivity and Cyber Café sponsor Centennial of Puerto Rico. In addition, Ray thanked Gauss Research Laboratory which, through its special participation, helped to bring the 8th Annual Foosball Tournament to meeting attendees.

Ray reviewed the rules of discussion to be followed throughout the meeting, the meeting agenda, and relevant meeting information.

At the beginning of the meeting, approximately 96 people were in attendance.

[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.]

Words from Special Participant

Speaker: Dorothy Bollman, University of Puerto Rico

Transcript

Ray Plzak introduced Dorothy Bollman, who welcomed attendees to Puerto Rico on behalf of Dr. Oscar Moreno, the Gauss Research Laboratory of the University of Puerto Rico, whose special participation helped make possible the 8th Annual Foosball Tournament. Dorothy announced that the Internet exchange of Puerto Rico is going to begin operations by May 13th, and that the exchange is sponsored by PCH as well as Gauss Research Laboratory, Inc., and the founding members are CaribeNet, PrepaNet, Ultracom, and the University of Puerto Rico, including the Rio Peidras Campus, and also the high performance computing facility. She stated that if anyone wanted more information on the exchange, it’s website is available at http://www.ix.pr/ .

NRO Activities Report

Speakers: Ray Plzak, Chair of the NRO Executive Council

Transcript

Ray Plzak offered a brief update on activities within the NRO, highlighting the continuing work with ICANN on a definition of the relationship between the NRO and ICANN, recent meetings with the general manager of the IANA, and noting several presentations given by the NRO at the recent ICANN meeting in Lisbon. He stated that the RIRs through the NRO have been working with the IANA to help modernize the IPv4 registry information, and that IANA is undertaking some formatting changes and other changes. Ray concluded by noting that the NRO continues to be the coordinating body for the RIRs, and that while not an NRO activity, the RIRs have been jointly working on the requirements for certification of number resources.

There were no questions or comments from the floor.

IANA Activities Report

Speaker: Leo Vegoda, IANA Numbers Liaison

Presentation: PDF[

Transcript](/vault/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XIX/ppm2_transcript/#anchor_4)

Leo Vegoda began by offering an overview of his presentation, stating that it would include a brief introduction to IANA, details on projects aimed at improving the services it offers, statistics on its activities, and an opportunity for some questions.

Highlights:

• An example of improvements to come in the area of improved automation and interfaces is the Private Enterprise Numbers registry. A new website has been developed for this that has some extra automation to make it easier to use, and includes an enhanced back-end to improve the user experience. IANA’s main website is also being worked on and there will be more news regarding that in a few months.
• IANA has been working with the RIRs on improving the accuracy of registry data, in particular the IPv4 registry which has been updated four or five times in the last few months. Evaluation is also being done on a major upgrade to the IPv4 registry, with the intent of making it much more useful and it is expected that there will be something more to show very soon.
• In regards to DNSSEC, IANA is evaluating the signing of ARPA and the delegations within ARPA and working to develop a process for this.

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• An attendee asked how quickly, once IANA allocates to an RIR, is the published IPv4 allocation table updated? Leo replied that as part of the process of making an allocation to the RIR, the IPv4 registry is updated, usually within 20 minutes of sending the e-mail to the RIR notifying it of the allocation.

2007-4: Changes to IPv6 policy - removal of “interim” consideration

Speaker: Jordi Palet Martinez, Proposal Author

Introduction: PDF

Presentation: PDF
Transcript

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

• Advisory Council shepherds: Dan Alexander and Bill Darte
• Introduced on PPML on 24 Jan 07, 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]

Jordi Palet Martinez, as the author, continued with the presentation of the proposal. He provided a summary of the proposal and the rationale behind it.

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• An attendee asked if anyone present knew why the “interim” text was there to begin with. David Kessens, as one of those involved in drafting the initial policy text stated that it was put in because the authors realized the policy was highly imperfect at the time it was written and wanted to encourage subsequent edits once more experience with IPv6 was gained.

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.

2007-9: Modernization of ISP Immediate Need 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.

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• An attendee voicing opposition to the proposal, noted that while it was an improvement to the current policy, he believed there shouldn’t be a limitation on the size of the allocation available and the staff should have some leeway regarding the size of the allocations issued under this policy. Robert replied that in discussions about this, he sensed that having no limitation would not have much support and that they had to set a limit somewhere, noting further that the limit could be moved with subsequent policy proposals. He also asked of ARIN staff how many times allocations have been requested under this policy. Leslie Nobile, ARIN Director of Registration Services noted that there had been 22 requests since the beginning of 2004, with three of them larger than a /16. Another attendee, voicing support of the proposal, also noted his support for removing the /16 limit, noting that perhaps it should be a /8 since that would be as much as ARIN had available within the time it would take to get space from IANA and the thirty day need noted in the proposal. Leslie responded that ARIN usually doesn’t have a /8 available at any one time.
• An attendee inquired of ARIN staff if the level of care given to assessing the requests under the immediate need policy were any less diligent than what would occur for a normal request? Leslie Nobile responded that was not the case due to the increased requirement for the requester to submit documentation, and the commensurate increase in the effort required of staff to evaluate the request.
• An attendee asked if organizations that are applying under the immediate need policy can’t meet the general IPv4 allocation requirement for showing the current use of a /20 already, can they really need the space right away? Robert Seastrom replied that a better description of the policy would be that the organization has no history with ARIN and yet they need IP address space and can justify it through extraordinary means and documentation. Leslie Nobile added further clarification, stating that many ISPs applying under this policy are companies who have space from ARIN but they have a new product or new service under a completely new organization ID, and that Org ID has no history with ARIN. She noted that ARIN staff can’t look at the organization’s existing history with their other Org IDs.

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.

2007-10: End Site Immediate Need 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, noting how it mirrors the intent of proposal 2007-9 but aimed at creating the same opportunity for end sites. He also noted the possible complications should this proposal be adopted and 2007-9 was not adopted.

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• John Curran inquired of ARIN staff what the current practice was, noting the conflicting language of the current policy as it applies to end sites. Leslie Nobile, ARIN Director of Registration Services, stated that because of the conflicting language and in an effort to be fair to everyone, ARIN staff applies it to end users as well as ISPs.
• An attendee spoke in opposition to the proposal, noting that with the multi-homing policy, the need for this policy to be applicable to end sites would be rare. He went on to note that he believed the immediate need policy should be made to explicitly exclude end sites. Another attendee asked for ARIN staff to provide an example of how this policy was applied with respect to end sites. Leslie noted that these cases are so rare that she was unable to provide the details of any such case. Another attendee spoke in opposition to this proposal noting the lack of evidence for a definite need for it. Leslie offered that upon further research, they were able to identify 21 end user organizations that have immediate need associated with their records prior to 2004. An attendee noted that this was likely due to the lack of an adequate mechanism for end sites to receive space at the time, which has since been remedied with the current multi-homing policy.
• Speaking in opposition to the proposal, an attendee noted that his problem with the proposal was that it didn’t mention multi-homing as a requirement and was concerned about a run-up in requests that aren’t really justified.

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.

2007-5: Changes to IPv6 policy - removal of “multiple /48” justification

Speaker: Jordi Palet Martinez, Proposal Author

Introduction: PDF

Presentation: PDF
Transcript

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

• Advisory Council shepherds: Dan Alexander and Bill Darte
• Introduced on PPML on 24 Jan 07, 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]

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.

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• An attendee stated that it appeared if section 6.5.4.2 was removed, there would be no policy allowing an LIR or ISP to allocate a second or future address block to an organization that already had one. Jordi replied that he didn’t believe that was the case, but that he’d need to go back and review the NRPM to make sure. Kasoke Ito, stating that he was an original member of the editorial team for the IPv6 policy, described the original intent was that for allocations smaller than a /48 from LIRs/ISPs, the idea was to leave the size up to the LIR, but for one or more blocks of a /48 or larger, there would be review at the RIR level to ensure proper assignment procedures.
• An attendee spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that not enough experience has been gained to justify the removal of the section.
• Speaking against the proposal, an attendee stated that he thought it was trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist and that ARIN still needs to collect this information. He went on to say that if the criteria for larger reassignments is not clear, then we should fix that problem, rather than striking the whole section that requires review. This latter view was voiced by multiple attendees.
• An attendee stated his opposition to the proposal based principally on the fact that there is similar wording in the IPv4 policy regarding providing justification for additional space for end users, and that he didn’t think there should be any difference in the level of stewardship on the IPv4 and IPv6 address space. He went on to note that section 6.5.4.2 conflicts with language that’s available on 6.5.4.1 where it states that RIRs are not concerned about the size of assignments from LIRs/ISPs and that the conflicting language in this section needs to be cleaned up.
• An attendee stated that he opposed this policy as it removed the requirement for ISPs to inform ARIN when assigning, what in the IPv4 space would be, a very large amount of address space.
• Speaking in opposition to the proposal, an attendee noted that he believed removing this section would lead to ISPs assigning large blocks of addresses and getting very large amounts of address space.
• Leslie Nobile offered a point of information, stating that ARIN has reviewed only 116 reassignments made of IPv6 space so far, and that 57 of them are larger than /48s and they all came in as the initial reassignment. She also added as a clarification that ARIN uses section 6.5.4.1 of the policy when assessing an initial allocation and that in regards to the requirement for a plan to assign 200 /48s, staff requests thorough documentation details of the plan, including information about the customers and the size of assignments.

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.

NRO NC Report

Speaker: Louis Lee, NRO NC Member from the ARIN Region

Presentation: PDF

Transcript

Louis Lee presented an overview of the ICANN Address Supporting Organization Address Council (ASO AC) / Number Resource Organization Number Council (NRO NC), and provided a report on its activities.

Highlights:

• Currently there are no global policies in the queue and no processes being updated.
• Administrative functions to be updated include the selection and appointment of a representative to the ICANN Board of Directors and changes to the ASO website.
• At the upcoming ICANN meeting in June, the ASO seat on the Board of Directors will be filled from the pool of eight eligible candidates.

There were no questions or comments from the floor.

LACNIC Update

Speaker: Raúl Echeberría, LACNIC Executive Director

Presentation: PDF[

Transcript](/vault/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XIX/ppm2_transcript/#anchor_10)

Raúl Echeberría provided a presentation about recent activities and developments within LACNIC and its region.

Highlights:

• Provided data on activities relating to the ongoing evolution of its membership, noting a general increase in membership across many different levels of allocations and assignments. He also noted that 13-percent of LACNIC’s membership comes from the Caribbean region.
• Staff has grown as well in order to provide an increased level of service to the LACNIC community, and that the staff moved into its new facilities in December 2006.
• Highlighted policy developments at LACNIC and offered information on non-policy discussions including a fee reduction (up to 50-percent) for not-for-profit organizations and a mandate by the community for the LACNIC staff to take actions to expand LACNIC’s relationship with all the stakeholders in the region.
• Discussed strategic plan worked on in 2006 for where the organization should be in 2009, in terms of organizational vision, mission, objectives and projects.
• Current projects underway include:
  • +Raices, which will has seen the installation of three anycast root servers in Chile, Argentina, and Venezuela, with two new root servers coming in Panama and Ecuador.
  • FRIDA Program is a partnership among LACNIC, IDRC from Canada and ISOC and is a small grants program for funding research projects. The total amount for this phase is $650,000 (USD) and the next call for projects is this week.
• LACNIC is involved in a number of other activities throughout its region focusing on outreach and support on technical issues.
• Offered information on LACNIC X which will take place from 21-25 May 2007 in Isla Margarita, Venezuela.

There were no questions or comments from the floor.

2007-7: Creation of Policy for Subsequent End-User IP Requests/Assignments

Speaker: Alex Rubenstein, Proposal Author

Introduction: PDF

Presentation: PDF
Transcript

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

• Advisory Council shepherds: Alex Rubenstein and Suzanne Woolf
• Introduced on PPML on 16 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]

Alex Rubenstein, as the author, continued with the presentation of the proposal. He provided details on the text and rationale of the proposal, as well as a recap of some of the discussion on the PPML and details from the staff assessment.

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• An attendee, speaking in support of the proposal, suggested that it might be better to change the last sentence to remove the references to the two separate sub-sections and simply replace it with one reference to section 4.3.
• An attendee objected to the proposal on the grounds that he believed the utilization requirement should exclude legacy space that an organization may hold. John Curran asked ARIN staff what the current practice was on this issue, and Leslie Nobile, ARIN Director of Registration Services, responded that the current practice was to include legacy space when evaluating legacy space, further noting that if the organization has space of any kind, it was important to review how they’ve used it before issuing them more space. An attendee spoke in favor of the proposal, the proposed change to the section reference, and stated that he would be against any effort to remove the consideration of legacy space when evaluating utilization.

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.

RIPE NCC Update

Speaker: Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC Managing Director

Presentation:PDF

Transcript

Axel Pawlik provided a presentation on recent activities and developments within RIPE NCC and its region.

Highlights:

• Completed a reorganization of the office and staff, with the aim to more easily have departments focus on precise & non-competing goals.
• Regarding number resource certification at RIPE, this is being driven by a community-approved activity plan, and in looking how to proceed it was decided to establish a task force with five or six representatives from the RIPE membership and use them to sound out ideas, work with prototypes, and get their thoughts on the possible impacts to their business processes.
• RIPE continues to engage in active outreach to its members and within its region, holding four regional meetings in the past eight months, working on another survey of its membership for sometime in 2007, and assisted in organizing the first meeting of the Middle Eastern Network Operators Group (MENOG) which took place in early April 2007 in Bahrain.
• Continuing to reach out to governments in the RIPE region, specifically holding government roundtables and participation in a number of related activities.
• Next meeting will be RIPE 54, taking place from 7-11 May 2007 in Tallinn, Estonia.

There were no questions or comments from the floor.

IPv4 Address Panel

Moderator: John Curran

Speakers: Scott Bradner, Lee Howard, Bill Manning, Ray Plzak, Paul Vixie, Bill Woodcock

Introduction:PDF

Transcript

Ray Plzak made a brief introduction to the purpose and scope of the panel, which focused on the issues surrounding IPv4 address space consumption, the issues that may arise as a result, and the ideas about what role ARIN should have in best serving the community. Before the panel discussion, Ray presented a number of slides providing statistics and projections on IPv4 address space consumption.

The panel consisted of all the members of the ARIN Board of Trustees. John Curran then led the panelists in a discussion of what role ARIN has to play within the constraints and guidance of its mission.

The panelists discussion may be read in the meeting transcript. An open discussion period then took place.

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• An attendee suggested looking into the idea of a policy that would state that if an organizations comes in for IPv4 address space, they would also automatically receive IPv6 space. The attendee also suggested that most people appear to believe that a transition to IPv6 may be expensive, but if it is planned for and implemented well, it can be done for very little cost, and that in the end, a delay in implementing IPv6 would actually prove more expensive. A number of attendees throughout the discussion voiced opposition to the idea of handing out IPv6 address space to organizations that haven’t requested it, primarily citing it as wasteful and would lead to problems down the road.
• An attendee voiced his opinion that it seemed to all focus on the issue of have’s and have not’s, and citing a number of issues stated that his concern was the possible creation of a black market in IPv4 address space and that he felt that ARIN should work to diminish or blunt that possibility.
• An attendee asked for opinions on the concept of having a policy or engaging in activity to address the possible depletion of RFC 1918 space used by cable operators and others so that the community could buy the industry time to solve its layer 7 issues. A number of the panelists stated that buying time at this point isn’t feasible and that the window for IPv4 is much closer to closing than the attendee appeared to believe. John Curran also stated that because of the scope of the issue, it would need to be addressed outside of ARIN and would be more appropriate to bring up with other organizations including the IETF and the IANA. An attendee pointed out that there had been several efforts to work on a draft proposed to the IETF to allocate additional 1918 space, but that as far as the attendee knew, none of them are currently moving forward.
• Raúl Echeberría of LACNIC spoke that he believed that all the RIR communities needed to move to reclaim space that isn’t being used and that there needed to be more effort in promoting IPv6, by the RIRs and other organizations and governments, to ease the pressure of the situation and allow for the proper planning to take place. He also noted that the promotion of IPv6 should focus more on organizations being ready for IPv6 rather than that it should be adopted in a short amount of time. He concluded by stating that he believed IPv4 consumption will have negative impacts on developing countries and economies, and that the community needs to take care that negative impacts are mitigated for those areas.
• An attendee spoke that he believed the major issues were how to ease this transition, how to mitigate the impact of this transition to the network, and to make sure that the community understands that if they do not address this, it will be addressed by those outside of the community. He concluded by saying that ARIN should be looking at facilitating a market in the address space to make it serve the community and looking to facilitate the ability to exchange and get beneficial use of all the small pieces of address space that might be hidden somewhere with no place to go to aggregate them, as a sort of “garbage collection.” Lee Howard replied that there are a few things to bear in mind, primarily that ARIN has taken a position that IP addresses are not property, and that certainly has an influence on how ARIN would deal with any kind of market situation. He went on to say that another issue is that if we have a market that evolves and ARIN moved toward a resource certificate system where the attestation of an IP address block to a particular organization became much more critical, then ARIN could stand as a sort of title company. He added that in this scenario, people could be buying useless address space on some kind of an open market. He concluded by saying this raises the question to the community if it wants to look at what ARIN can do with the transfer process that would somehow recognize a market in IP addresses, but at the same time would help distribution of the address space. An attendee asked, in regards to recent ARIN litigation, hadn’t the courts already ruled that IP addresses are not property? Steve Ryan, ARIN Counsel, replied that it would be more accurate to say that the court ordered Mr. Kremen to comply with our procedures, and that the court made no definitive finding with regard to whether IP addresses are a property or a service. He added that this was mainly due to the fact that by finding Mr. Kremen had to comply with ARIN procedures, the issue of the status of IP addresses was left unaddressed
• An attendee stated that the whole theory that ARIN has operated under so far is that addresses aren’t property, and we need to hold to that for a lot of reasons, including the general good of the community.
• Paul Wilson of APNIC stated that he wanted to raise the possibility, which he’d heard mentioned casually for years, of using the Class-E space 240/4. He went on to say that it seems that if it’s going to be done, it should be done soon. A discussion then ensued about this issue, focusing on the ability of hardware and software vendors to address the usage of this space in their products.
• An attendee asked what happens once the IANA’s ability to issue IPv4 address space is expired, in terms of how long after that ARIN thinks it can continue assigning address space? Ray Plzak replied that he didn’t believe that ARIN would probably ever run out of IPv4 address space, but the problem was that the IPv4 address space it had would not be able to be aggregative enough to be useful. He went on to say that it would seem that as the garbage collection occurs, there could be some aggregation, but that the RIRs would lose the ability to allocate address space against current policy minimum sizes.
• An attendee raised the question that if there is going to be a market for resale of IP addresses, is it preferable to try and have a legal market for it, and what then happens to the concept of stewardship. He continued by asking if somebody can afford to buy an IP address, should they simply be able to buy it or should ARIN still try to enforce the things that are important to stewardship such as, efficient use and other current metrics? Lee Howard stated that he didn’t think we have sufficient information yet to answer that question.
• An attendee stated his belief that the issue of IPv4 consumption and adoption of IPv6 could not be adequately addressed without the buy-in of businesses that are not active members of the ARIN community. He noted that these businesses still run large internal networks, and offered as an example that his company would not be deploying a completely IPv6-ready operating system on its 25,000 desktops until 2009, which is the soonest it could be budgeted for, and that the soonest they would be running IPv6 would be 2015. He went on to add that, to many businesses, there is not any apparent business advantage to adopting IPv6 and they see only the costs in upgrading hardware and software. He concluded by saying that while no one is forcing them to move to IPv6, these types of business represent the majority of customers for the major network equipment vendors, and without these businesses moving to IPv6, the vendors have no incentive to offer the products and services to anyone else, including the ISPs that are the usual ARIN members and customers.

2007-12: IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal

Speaker: Toshiyuki Hosaka, Proposal Author

Introduction: PDF

Presentation: PDF
Transcript

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

• Advisory Council shepherds: Bill Darte, Alec Peterson, and Suzanne Woolf
• Introduced on PPML on 22 Feb 07, designated as a formal policy on 20 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]

Toshiyuki Hosaka, as the author, continued with the presentation of the proposal. He provided details on the issues involved, the problems the proposal attempts to address, and a recap of some of the discussion at other RIRs and within the ARIN region.

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• An attendee speaking in opposition to the proposal stated that if ARIN’s lawyer says, as he did in the legal assessment, that this would be a dangerous thing for ARIN to do, I’m going to believe him. He concluded by saying that he didn’t believe he saw any way to edit this proposal and keep the same intent that wouldn’t still involve the antitrust issues raised and that it would also create a run on IPv4 address space.
• Leo Bicknell of the ARIN AC stated that from the Advisory Council perspective, this policy was received very close to the meeting and the AC decided to not formally accept it as a proposal, but that it then went through the petition process and was made a formal proposal. He went on to say that the wording and language doesn’t match what a NRPM policy would normally look like because of a lack of time with which to work with the authors and re-word it. He concluded that from his own perspective, he would like the issues surrounding how this became a formal proposal to not cloud the discussion at this meeting, and that the proposal covers some very important concepts the community needs to address, and those should be the focus of discussion, and not the specific wording which can still be addressed through existing mechanisms.
• An attendee, speaking against the proposal, stated that while he disagreed with the proposal, he did think it addressed some worthwhile issues, namely the idea of reserving some address space to be a kind of swap space that could be used as garbage collection when blocks become overly fragmented. He added that he believed the proposal author’s intent to set an announcement date and a termination date was misguided, due to the inevitable run on space that would occur when the announcement was made. In conclusion, the attendee also stated that he did not believe this should be addressed by ARIN or the other RIRs, and instead should be aimed at a policy stating when IANA would stop allocating IPv4 blocks to the registries, so that registries could remove themselves from the legal issues.
• An attendee voicing opposition to the proposal stated that he believed the most obvious problem with the proposal was that there doesn’t seem to be a mechanism to handle the probability that the community has incorrectly guessed when the address space will actually run out. Kosuke Ito, one of the proposal’s co-authors, replied that they felt it was very important to have some sort of global synchronization on these dates, and that as a result they had to be set firmly within the policy for that to work.
• An attendee asked for clarification about whether this was a global policy or simply a policy that would be coordinated amongst the RIRs. Kosuke Ito responded that the intent was for a policy coordinated amongst all of the RIRs. Another attendee stated that he believed this would be much less effective, as if it was not moving forward as a global policy, it would not be passed through the ASO to the ICANN Board for ratification. The attendee who originally asked for the clarification stated that based on this information and the other issues raised, he was against the proposal. Steve Ryan, as ARIN Counsel, did point out that the best method to avoid antitrust issues would be for ICANN and IANA to address this issue, rather than have it addressed on the RIR level.
• An attendee speaking in opposition to the proposal stated that he did not believe this was the right policy for ARIN or for the Internet community in general, and that there were likely better ways to address this issue.
• Speaking against the proposal, an attendee said that he supports and expects that ARIN would continue to assign globally unique addresses as long as there are globally unique addresses to assign.
• An attendee asked that given a hypothetical situation where all the RIRs had set aside space to be used once IPv4 exhaustion has occurred, could IANA technically do that or not. David Conrad replied that based only on the technical mechanism involved it could be done. An attendee asked what it would actually take, in terms of community mechanisms, for IANA to take the step to reserve this space. David Conrad replied that it was his opinion that it would actually need to be done through a global policy.
• An attendee, speaking against the proposal, noted that in the future once IPv6 has reached widespread adoption, and organizations may have returned some sizable amount of IPv4 space, this proposal seems to preclude those addresses from ever being handed out again, even though they would be available.
• An attendee noted that given the timelines involved in the proposal, and the estimates on the lifetime of the remaining IPv4 pool of address space, there was no longer enough time to implement this proposal.
• An attendee opposed to the proposal stated that he did think it would be a good idea if ARIN and the other RIRs could publicize at regular intervals when they believed that the remaining IPv4 address space would be consumed.

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.

2007-6: IPv4 PI Minimum Size change

Speaker: David Williamson, Proposal Author

Introduction: PDF

Presentation: PDF
Transcript

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

• Advisory Council shepherds: Alec Peterson and Lea Roberts
• Introduced on PPML on 15 Feb 07, 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]

David Williamson, as the author, continued with the presentation of the proposal. He provided details on the proposal text, rationale, and an overview of the history of the issue. He also offered information on what he believed the advantages were to the proposal, the discussion of the proposal on the PPML, and addressed some of the issues raised in that discussion.

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• An attendee asked for clarification from the staff of the other RIRs present about their experiences with /24s and what, if any, evidence there was about spammers requesting this space. He stated that he was for the proposal unless some evidence could be offered from the other RIRs that there was an actual problem in this area. Filiz Yilmaz of the RIPE NCC replied that due to difference in policy, RIPE did not have any substantial or relevant information to offer in regards to spammers and /24s.
• An attendee asked that if this proposal is approved and it is discovered that spammers have received space, what steps could be taken? The attendee went on to inquire about what ARIN staff currently does. Leslie Nobile, ARIN Director of Registration Services, stated that currently staff actively looked for the kind of fraudulent documentation spammers would need to submit to request space, and that when evidence of fraud is found, ARIN lawyers are brought in and the space is reclaimed. The attendee who asked the question then noted that if this policy were approved, it could possibly increase the work load on staff and that she would not support the proposal.
• An attendee noted that ARIN does not reserve space for the sake of later aggregation when it issues assignments, and that if an organization received this space and needed to grow, it would need to get noncontiguous space and take up another slot in the routing table.
• An attendee asked what problem the proposal was attempting to solve. David Williamson replied that it was an attempt to level the playing field for smaller organizations, allowing them to receive provider-independent space.
• Leslie Nobile offered a point of information that was requested earlier on the PPML, stating that in relation to this policy the current rate at which /21s and /22s are issued, since ARIN implemented those policies that lowered the allocation minimum in May, ARIN issued 607 /21s and /22 to ISPs and issued 368 /21s and /22s to end-users.
• An attendee stated that he supported the proposal, but was concerned with a number of issues, primarily how it would scale under a large amount of requests and that if the proposal had a sunset mechanism where it said we would look at this issue again in six months, his support would be stronger.
• An attendee stated that he supported the abandonment of the part of the proposal that called for edits in Section 4.4, as that section states that a specific block be set aside for things like core DNS servers and exchange points, and that needs to remain. The attendee also suggested raising the bar for justification in the proposal, suggesting that it have a requirement for demonstrating that an organization has been multi-homed for six months, and that this might help address the potential spam issue.

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, noting that this issue was raised on the previous day, voiced his support for the development of improved web interfaces for customers at ARIN.
• An attendee stated that he noticed a number of proposals at this meeting that focused on modifications of an editorial nature, and asked if there couldn’t be a more efficient process by which these edits could be grouped together. Ray Plzak replied that from the perspective of ARIN staff, they are continually looking through the NRPM for just these issues, and that they have attempted to provide this feedback to the Advisory Council in a manner that they are direct and focused on specific areas, so as to make it easier for the AC to parse what is being delivered, and that it was up to the AC when to craft proposals based on the staff feedback.
• An attendee asked for views from those present regarding the issue of authentication, whether anyone would care to express an opinion as to whether ARIN should accept X.509 keys that are signed by other certificate authorities, and if so, would they want to identify which certificate authorities. She added that it was her opinion that ARIN should accept certificates from other RIRs. An attendee replied that ARIN currently has an X.509 policy document on the web site, and that he believed this issue was already addressed in there. A discussion then followed about the issues involved in ARIN accepting certificates from other RIRs and organizations. Ray Plzak added that in the research that’s currently going on between the RIRs in the area of resource certification, the idea of accepting other RIR certificates has been talked about and that it was conceivable that something like that would happen.
• An attendee asked for discussion on the common scenario in the Caribbean where a small organization cannot get address allocations, for example IPv6 services through ARIN, because of local regulatory conditions or where their upstream sees no need to support IPv6 and the small organization has no recourse. John Curran suggested that if the attendee believed this could be addressed by a change in policy, he approach members of the Advisory Council to ask for assistance in crafting such a proposal. On the issue of local regulatory restrictions, Lee Howard replied that, as ARIN follows the law in the regions in which it operates, there was not likely much ARIN could do in such a situation to help.
• Heather Schiller, as a member of the Advisory Council, asked if there was some way for the AC to assist in the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP) as they currently do in the policy process. John Curran replied that it was his personal opinion that many of the suggestions could be handled best either directly by staff or through discussion and direction from the Board of Trustees, and noted that the consultation role the AC serves in the policy development process was spelled out in the ARIN bylaws. He concluded by saying that was his personal view and the views of other Board members may differ.
• An attendee suggested that in regards to proposal 2007-6, some objections may be able to be addressed by having the ARIN staff at each renewal of those resources require verification that the site is still multi-homed or refuse to renew the resource, and that this could be suggested through the ACSP and would not result in any modification to the proposal text. John Curran stated that he would be uncomfortable with establishing a practice for not renewing resources that wasn’t a part of ARIN’s official policy set.
• An attendee suggested that on the issue of judging utilization of end sites, the criteria should based on the utilization of subnets in a given amount of time multiplied by some sizing factor, and offered as an example that the criteria could be the number of subnets an end site is expected to have within 10 years, and double that number and then round it up to the nearest IPv6 CIDR prefix. In response, another attendee noted that, as a community, we have not been very successful in estimating that far out in time. Further discussion occurred on the merits of this idea and the possible details.
• During the course of discussion of some potential global policies, it was noted that it would be helpful if the NRO had a web page that listed potential global policies.
• An attendee noted that there was currently an inconsistency in the NRPM between the recommended assignment size that ISPs should give out in IPv6, which is a /56 in the general case, and the existing language that the initial assignment be based on 200 /48s. He stated that he believed there needed to be a new proposal to modify that and invited feedback from those in attendance. Further discussion occurred; focusing on what the exact change would be and what the current policy and practice is in other RIR regions.

Closing Announcements and Adjournment

Speaker: Ray Plzak, ARIN President and CEO

Transcript

Ray Plzak made closing announcements and again thanked the ARIN XIX network connectivity and Cyber Café sponsor Centennial of PR, as well as the Gauss Laboratory of the University of Puerto Rico for their special participation in the 8th Annual ARIN Foosball Tournament. He offered a reminder on the Members Meeting, which would take place the following day, and to which all attendees were invited. He concluded by thanking all of the meeting attendees for participating and for the many fruitful and interesting discussions.

Sponsors