ARIN XVIII Public Policy Meeting Day One Notes - 11 October 2006 [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 XVIII 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:

• 169 total attendees, including approximately 45 first-time attendees.
• Attendance is comprised of 143 attendees from 29 different U.S. states, 5 attendees from 4 Canadian provinces, and 21 attendees from 12 different countries outside the ARIN region. NANOG had approximately 400 attendees, with an overlap of 103 attending both meetings.
• Thank you for ARIN XVIII network connectivity sponsor SAVVIS, Inc, and to the Center for the Application of Information Technology (CAIT) at Washington University in St. Louis’ School of Engineering and Applied Science for its partial sponsorship of the Cyber Café. And finally, thanks to Cisco for its sponsorship of the “Networking with IPv6” workshop held on Sunday for both ARIN and NANOG attendees.
• Review 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 pending litigation 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 20 individuals viewing the meeting webcast throughout the proceedings, and 10 registered remote participants.]

NRO NC Election

Speaker: Ray Plzak, ARIN President and CEO

Presentation : PDF

Transcript

Ray Plzak provided information on the election process of the ARIN region’s representative to the NRO NC for a three-year term to fill the seat currently held by Louis Lee. He provided a listing of the candidates, and noted the biographies and statements of support for the candidates are available on ARIN’s website, as well as a hard copy in the folder given to meeting attendees. He concluded his presentation with an explanation of the two methods of voting available; ARIN General Members in good standing were able to vote online for the previous week, and all attendees of ARIN XVIII could vote at https://app.arin.net/election/ .

Ray Plzak introduced the candidates for the NRO NC, displaying the candidates’ statements describing their motivation to serve and their biographies. Candidates present at the meeting were given an opportunity to speak.

• Pervez Delawalla - not present, motivation to serve and biography presented
• Louis Lee - present, introduced himself and offered a statement on his qualifications
• Jason Schiller - present, introduced himself and offered a statement on his qualifications

Ray highlighted the URL to more detailed biographical information and statements of support and asked that the meeting attendees review this information before voting.

Regional Policy Updates

Speaker: Einar Bohlin, ARIN Policy Analyst

Presentation : PDF

Transcript

Einar Bohlin presented a summary of policy developments and discussions in the other RIR regions. Policy issues common among more than one region include:

• IPv4 and a 12 Month Allocation Period
• IPv6 HD-ratio to 0.94
• Amending IPv6 assignment and utilization requirements (/56)
• IPv6 Provider-independent assignments for end users
• IPv6 micro-allocations for critical infrastructure
• 4-Byte AS Numbers

Einar provided specific details about policy developments and discussions within each RIR region in his presentation.

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 30 September 2006. 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.

IPv6 IAB / IETF Activities Report

Speaker: Lea Roberts

Presentation : PDF

Transcript

Lea Roberts, on behalf of Thomas Narten who was unable to attend, provided a presentation about activities within the IETF related to IPv6.

Highlights:

• Site Multihoming by IPv6 Intermediation (SHIM6) has three core documents that are in working group last call now, and they will then proceed for consideration and approval to the IETF Last Call and IESG.
• IPv6 Working Group is in a mode of maintenance, with no face-to-face meetings in the past year. Three (revised RFC) documents are almost finished:
  • “Neighbor Discovery for IPv6” (ipv6-2461bis)
  • “IPv6 over PPP” (ipv6-over-ppp-v2)
  • “Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration for IPv6” (ipv6-privacy-addrs-v2)
• V6 Operations (V6OPS) Working Group is actively working on a document: “Using IPSec to Secure IPv6-in-IPv4 Tunnels” (v6ops-ipsec-tunnels). A number of other related documents are going through processing by the IESG.
• Other working groups covered in the presentation were the Softwires WG, DNS Operations (DNSOP), DNS Extensions (DNSEXT), Global Routing Operations (GROW), and Operational Security Capabilities for IP Networks (OPSEC). In addition, Lea discussed the IETF BOF WIKI, which summarizes recent and upcoming BOF activities.

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• It was noted that the activities of the IPv6 Working Group are now focused on moving the relevant RFCs to standard status.

Blacklisting Round Table

Moderator: John Curran

Speakers: Don Blumenthal, Adam Brower, Katie Flowers, Rob Seastrom

Transcript

Ray Plzak started by stating the purpose of this panel and introducing the members of the panel.

John Curran explained that each of the panel members were given a few questions, and that each one would be given a chance to address those questions in five or ten minutes, and then the microphones would be open for additional questions and comments from the floor. The questions asked of the panel were:

• What is the value of blacklists?
• How do they benefit or hurt the Internet community?
• What is the implication, as you see it, for ARIN?
• Is there anything ARIN should or shouldn’t do in this area?

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

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• The original RBL was never a blacklist, but a real-time black hole list, meaning that it was a place for your e-mail to go to if you were on the list. Over time, the idea seems to be morphing into an ‘Internet Reputation’ metric, and that the current state of affairs is the natural outgrowth of the Internet being open to everyone.
• ARIN should work to authenticate, as much as possible, every bit of data in WHOIS, as this would have a measurable benefit to the entire community. In addition, ARIN should do everything it can to help in the secure and accurate representation of address allocations.
• Many spoke about the importance of understanding who you are dealing with when using someone’s RBL. Some said perhaps ARIN could help through education efforts focused on assisting ISPs in knowing more about specific blacklists, especially as the need to work around blacklists that won’t delist sizable blocks results in the wasting of address space. Others disagreed, saying that ARIN shouldn’t be put in the position of making any judgments about blacklists, especially with a lack of standards on what an RBL is and how it should operate. It was also discussed that this is an area that seems to be outside ARIN’s role.
• Some attendees felt that some general information on blacklists on the ARIN website would be helpful, as many times operators are unaware of a specific blacklist until a server or block of addresses is added to one. Others stated that the education problem did not really exist in the ISP community, but was a broader problem.

2006-3: Capturing Originations in Templates

Speaker: Sandra Murphy - Proposal Author

Introduction : PDF

Presentation : PDF
Transcript

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

• Advisory Council shepherds: Mark Kosters, Suzanne Woolf
• Introduced on PPML on 9 Feb 06, designated as a formal policy on 17 Feb 06. This was first discussed at ARIN XVII. No revisions have been made since then.
• Presentation of Staff Impact Analysis, Legal Review, Staff Comments, and overview of PPML discussion activity. [see presentation and transcript links above for details]

Sandra Murphy, as the author, continued with the presentation of the proposal. She provided details on the history of the proposal, the reasons for it, and its intended benefits. She also discussed some of the arguments against the proposal, and offered information to the points raised.

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• Some voiced an objection to the proposal on the grounds that the information gathered in the templates would be too incomplete to create an IRR object, and that an IRR is the correct repository for this data.
• The issue of the information being supplied being optional was raised, noting that this would be of little use unless people actually put it in the templates. In addition, this data would not be present for very many existing delegations, and that legacy delegations would be difficult to authenticate as ARIN may not have any information to base it on. Sandy Murphy noted there would be missing data, but what was there could be counted on as being valid.
• The issue of whether or not producing a mapping of IP systems and autonomous systems like this was really within ARIN’s role was raised. It was again stated that the proper place for this data was in an IRR, but Sandra Murphy pointed out that there exists no mechanism for an IRR to authenticate that a mapping of IP resources and an AS is from the correct party, especially as the name submitted to the IRR may be different than what is recorded in ARIN’s WHOIS. A follow-up statement from the floor included the statement that authentication of a routing registry was possible, as it is done by RIPE and APNIC.
• An alternative to this proposal would be to require that a submitted netblock SWIP of a multi-homed customer would have to occur to the same Org ID that received the AS. In response to the latter statement, Sandra Murphy pointed out that it would be problematic, as there are multi-homing cases where routes can be originated by an AS whose Org ID has no relationship to the prefix being routed.
• ARIN’s role in authenticating resource holders, and publicizing of such mappings, are two somewhat separate issues.
• Several points about the mechanics of how this would work were discussed. Topics included the format and frequency of the publication of this data, how dynamic the published data would be, the nature in which the data would need to be submitted, how much of the data would actually be authenticated by ARIN, and what would happen in instances of cross-RIR resources, i.e. an IP address block that was received from ARIN, and an AS number that was received from a different RIR or under a different Org ID.
• A discussion was held about the suitability of history-based techniques for determining these mappings. It was pointed out that the data gathered from such efforts could not be relied on due to hijacked or stolen space that has been in use for a period of time.
• The idea of ARIN modifying its Certificate Practice Statement to allow those certificates to be used by others as a way of allowing the community itself to accomplish this goal was put forward.
• A question was asked about continuing work on the integration of ARIN’s address registry and its routing registry. Ray Plzak responded that work was done on this before involving the RADB, but failed to result in a satisfactory conclusion. He went on to say that this work item is planned for 2007.

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 their deliberations.

IP Address Renumbering

Speaker: Steve Crocker

Presentation : PDF

Transcript

Steve Crocker provided a presentation on putting a finite lifetime on addresses and forcing a thorough renumbering on a regular basis. He stated that this was not aimed at beginning discussion on whether this should become an ARIN-specific policy, but rather a broader discussion for the entire Internet community. He also stated that this is a personal idea of his, and does not represent the views of any organization.

Highlights:

• Renumbering has some positive benefits, though certainly there would be problems initiating this kind of process within the operator community. The argument is one of long term global benefit, versus short term local difficulties.
• If this is adopted throughout the system and applied fairly, we could actually reduce cost quite a bit and increase the chance this will be adopted uniformly.
• A benefit would be the reduction of long-term structural fragmentation, but it is difficult to adopt something that brings global good unless it also benefits people on a local basis. Other benefits include the recovery of unused space and improved record keeping. There is a cost associated in terms of resources and new tools needed, but if applied fairly and uniformly these can be minimized. This would be a strategic change that could take well over a decade to accomplish, so this proposal is more to get the discussion started than saying we should all adopt this right now.
• He discussed possible implementation and enforcement methodologies, noting that a lot of changes would be needed at the edge. He also noted that the time cycle could be encoded into the actual address, taking up 4-bits, and that a renumbering event could be triggered before the expiration date easing headaches in the cases of mergers or acquisitions.
• He discussed that this proposal has clear applicability in IPv6, and possibly less so in IPv4, as he’s heard from some that there doesn’t currently exist enough address space to carry this out.

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• One of the stated benefits of this is “service discovery,” or the ability to tell what’s live, what’s dead, and what addresses are being used by which organizations. This is already being addressed, though admittedly somewhat slowly, through several different tracks, including work on DHCP, and IPv6 service discovery models. Also, before this can happen, the difference between a persistent IP address representing where you are in the topology, and who you are needs to be addressed. Steve Crocker responded that this is a fundamental issue, and if this issue is overtaken by positive events that would alleviate the same problems, that would be just as acceptable.
• This seems to be the equivalent of asking every single human being to move from one place to another on the other side of the planet every twelve months. Steve Crocker replied that while he understood the point being made, the difference is that on the Internet we have the domain name system to handle this, and that the actual addresses people should use wouldn’t be changing, just the IP addresses they point to.
• While this proposal may not be the method of choice for many, the issue of how to make renumbering easier is extremely important. Forcing people to renumber is not the answer, but we do need better tools to make renumbering easier and anything we can do to facilitate that is a good thing.
• This is a bad idea for a number of reasons, but mainly because it doesn’t attack the problem in the right place. The real problem is that separation is needed between an end system identifier and a topological location identifier. If we could move the routing protocol to support that semantic better, the whole idea of address fragmentation would go away like it should have when IPv6 was first designed.
• Organizations, especially large corporations, would never do this, as it would result in a cost to the organization without any sort of benefit to the organization resulting from it. This is just impractical from a business perspective.
• This seems to be similar to the idea of large cities engaging in redevelopment of older sections of the city. Often this results from catastrophes such as fire or earthquakes. This proposal would be the equivalent of urban renewal by forced earthquakes. You can end up with a well-designed infrastructure and good results, but the cost may be prohibitive, and everyone would need to agree on the priority before moving forward.

AFRINIC Update

Speaker: Ernest Byaruhanga, AFRINIC Registration Services Manager

Presentation :PDF

Transcript

Ernest Byaruhanga provided a presentation on recent activities and developments within AFRINIC and its region.

Highlights:

• Working to achieve full financial sustainability after the two-year incubation period. Progress so far includes achieving about 75% of a full year operation budget reserve by the end of 2006, organizational and control processes in place, accounts regularly audited, and receiving a tax exemption from the government of Mauritius.
• A 140% growth in membership in 2006 over 2005, as well as a steady growth of allocated resources.
• This year, AFRINIC has been focused on IPv6 awareness among the community through training and conferences. This has led to more interest in IPv6.
• Building partnerships and collaborating with other organizations such as AfNOG, AAU, AfTLD, and AfriSPA. In addition, AFRINIC has continued its active involvement in NRO activities.
• Other projects of interest for the community include:
  • A MyAFRINIC portal to allow LIRs to easily interact with AFRINIC and manage their resources
  • Service Fee Analysis and Internet Resource Certification
  • Routing Information and statistics: A tool to evaluate the routing status of resources allocated by AFRINIC and overall statistics on Internet resources in our region
  • Before the end of 2007, working on activation of IRR for AFRINIC region

There were no questions or comments from the floor.

LACNIC Update

Speaker: German Valdez, LACNIC Policy and External Relationship Manager

Presentation : PDF

Transcript

German Valdez provided a presentation about recent activities and developments within LACNIC and its region.

Highlights:

• Provided data on activities relating to allocation of resources by LACNIC in the areas of IPv4 and IPv6.
• Highlighted IPv6 activities including IPv6 Tour last year which had 2500 participants in 10 countries, FLIP-6, IPv6 TF, workshops, research projects.
• RAICES Project - Project with ISC for installation of anycast root server in the region. Two Anycast root servers launched in Chile and Argentina. Two more MoUs have been signed – Venezuela, which will be launched next week, and Panama.
• FRIDA Program (LACNIC, IDRC, ICA, ISOC, GKP) – $480K USD fund for small grants to research projects in the region.
• eLAC-2007 is a set of measurable objectives related with the development of the Information Society in LAC region. It was the result of the Regional Conference of Governments in 2005 in Rio de Janeiro. LACNIC has activities that directly contribute to the achievement of 25 of the eLAC-2007 objectives. As a result, LACNIC is an active actor in the development of the Information Society in its region.
• In addition to developments related to specific policy proposals, an editorial working group has been created to review policies to unify concepts, avoid ambiguity, create a list of glossary of terms, etc.

There were no questions or comments from the floor.

IPv6 Multihoming BCP

Speaker: Marla Azinger

Presentation : PDF

Transcript

Marla Azinger provided a presentation on IPv6 multi-homing best common practices (BCP). She began by stating that this was an attempt to open up a discussion about an issue that has existed for years, how IPv6 users will implement multi-homing with IPv6 and route engineering on a global scale.

Highlights:

• We are left with several questions:
  • What solutions exist or can exist in order to enable IPv6 multi-homing and traffic engineering?
  • Can we come up with a solution to allow IPv6 multi-homing and traffic engineering on a global scale?
  • Who should be involved in creating the solution?
• Has met with a number of people within the IETF to discuss this issue and the options that exist, specifically several documents coming out of the IETF which may have an impact.
• This effort requires global input from the RIR communities – what will work with RIR policy and what are the current best business practices.
• Created a document to be posted on the NRO website to provide both a starting point for discussions, and as a living document, a repository for feedback. Any suggested solutions that have not been thought of or any needed rearrangement of existing solutions can be added; this is a community document.
• Marla went on to detail some of the suggestions, and discussed a number of the pros and cons that have been put forward about each one.

There were no questions or comments from the floor.

Open Microphone

Moderator: John Curran, ARIN Chairman of the Board

Transcript

• An attendee asked if ARIN would consider putting the contents of staff commentary on the proposals that occurs during the Open Policy Hour in the meeting report. Ray Plzak responded that Leslie Nobile, Director of Registration Services at ARIN, would be preparing a report and submitting it to the Advisory Council, and from there the AC may take various actions, including publishing of the report, either as-is or in part, so there is a mechanism for this to happen to get that information into the community.
• A comment was also made about the format of the Open Policy Hour, noting that it seemed to have become more regulated with more prepared material being presented and cutting into the more wide-open discussion time. It was noted that while this wasn’t an issue this time, it would be good in the future to keep as much of that hour open for discussion as possible. Ray Plzak responded that ARIN is looking at ways to address that concern, while trying to balance against the need for those new to ARIN to be brought up to speed on the process and the issues already under discussion.
• An attendee raised a concern that the new ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP) lacks adequate transparency and assurances of ARIN’s accountability to the community. John Curran replied that the idea of statistics on the suggestion process was a good idea, but offered that the content of or information about specific suggestions may not be able to be shared with the community, specifically regarding legal matters and the like.
• Another attendee suggested that the person making the suggestion should be allowed to make the decision on whether or not to post the suggestion to the community. John Curran replied that it was currently fine for the person making the suggestion to also post it to the community, but that due to legal concerns, a public acknowledgement of a suggestion may not always be possible. Others commented that if someone made a suggestion that was not acted on in a satisfactory manner, then that person can be heard through various means, including the ARIN mailing lists, and that an elaborate framework isn’t really needed.
• An update was requested on the issue of ARIN contracts that was posed during ARIN XVII, specifically ARIN’s publication and facilitation of participation by the community in certain contracting functions. John Curran replied that the Board of Trustees had approved a process to address this issue and that details would be posted to the ARIN website once everything was in place to implement it.
• A request was made for ARIN staff to provide information on how many assignment requests have been received as a result of the PI /48 policy that was passed last spring. Leslie Nobile responded that this information was part of her presentation on Registration Service activities that would be presented on Friday.

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 CDT. Ray concluded by extending thanks to the network connectivity sponsor SAVVIS, Inc, and to the Center for the Application of Information Technology (CAIT) at Washington University in St. Louis’ School of Engineering and Applied Science for its partial sponsorship of the Cyber Café. In addition, thanks were also given to Cisco for its sponsorship of the “Networking with IPv6” workshop held on Sunday for both ARIN and NANOG attendees.

Sponsors