ARIN Public Policy Meeting Day 2 Notes - Thursday, 18 October 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 by announcing Jason Schiller as the winner of the NRO Number Council election. He then presented details about the updated agenda, other meeting information, and closed his remarks by thanking network connectivity sponsor One Connect IP.

Ray introduced John Curran for a review of the rules of discussion to be followed throughout the meeting.

At the beginning of the meeting, approximately 150 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 18 individuals viewing the meeting webcast throughout the proceedings, and 20 registered remote participants.]

Statement from Sponsor

Speaker: John Osmon, Vice-President of Operations. One Connect IP

Transcript

Ray invited John Osmon to make a few remarks. John welcomed those in attendance to Albuquerque and expressed how happy One Connect IP was to be able to assist in bringing this meeting to the community.

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 participation in the Internet governance forums, and ongoing work with ICANN to define the relationship between the NRO and ICANN. The NRO made presentations before the government advisory committee of ICANN twice this year. The NRO will participate in the upcoming ICANN meeting in Los Angeles, as well as the Internet Governance Forum in Rio in November. He reported that new materials have been prepared to support outreach initiatives, including documentation and literature about the RIR system and the nature and effectiveness of the policy process. He stated that the NRO is working with ICANN to develop procedures for the IANA function. He concluded that the NRO continues to coordinate routine technical activities among the five RIRs.

There were no questions or comments from the floor.

2007-15: Authentication of Legacy Resources

Speaker: Andrew Dul, Proposal Author

Introduction: PDF

Presentation: PDF
Transcript

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

• Advisory Council shepherds: Alec Peterson and Paul Andersen
• Introduced on PPML on 9 July 2007, designated as a formal policy on 24 July 2007. This will be its first discussion at an ARIN meeting. Last revision made on 31 August 2007.
• Presentation of Staff Impact Analysis, Legal Review, Staff Comments, and overview of PPML discussion activity. [see presentation and transcript links above for details]

Andrew Dul, as the author, continued with the presentation of the proposal. He provided a summary of the proposal, noting that it was similar to a proposal implemented in the APNIC region in early 2005. He concluded stating the motivation of the proposal and discussed some of the issues raised about the proposal during discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List.

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• An attendee stated that the timeframe for implementation was much too short and should be extended out to a longer period.
• An attendee speaking in opposition to the proposal stated that he believed it did not create enough incentives for legacy space holders.
• An attendee speaking in opposition to the proposal stated that he objected to the provision which would lock-out changes for blocks where the legacy holder had not signed an RSA, as that penalized the community and not necessarily the legacy holder. Several attendees spoke against the proposal, citing the same objection. Suggestions on how to improve the proposal included: some allowance to add a working technical contact even if all other data is locked; something like a fee or other mechanism to encourage legacy holders to sign an RSA by a certain date; and general feedback that included more positive incentives for legacy space holders.
• An attendee speaking in opposition to the proposal made the suggestion that locking out changes to in-addr.arpa, instead of WHOIS, might be more useful.
• An attendee requested that ARIN staff provide information on what happens today when a legacy holder comes to ARIN for a change in updating information. Leslie Nobile, ARIN Director of Registration Services, responded that currently they allow the change request.
• An attendee spoke in opposition to the proposal as long as it was unclear as to how many legacy space holders and associated OrgIDs would be involved.

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.

2007-17: Legacy Outreach and Partial Reclamation

Speaker: Owen DeLong, Proposal Author

Introduction: PDF

Presentation: PDF
Transcript

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

• Advisory Council shepherds: Cathy Aronson and Lea Roberts
• Introduced on PPML on 29 June 2007, designated as a formal policy on 28 August 2007. This will be its first discussion at an ARIN meeting. Last revision was made on 17 September 2007.
• Presentation of Staff Impact Analysis, Legal Review, Staff Comments, and overview of PPML discussion activity. [see presentation and transcript links above for details]

Owen DeLong, as the author, continued with the presentation of the proposal. He provided a summary of the proposal, the rationale behind it, and some of the issues involved.

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• An attendee asked if the author believe that the fees associated with services provided by ARIN to its members are sufficiently a barrier here, and that by waiving them there is sufficient inducement. Owen responded that he agreed that fees are not a huge barrier to joining the process, but that fee waivers in combination with the Legacy RSA are together a good incentive to legacy space holders.
• An attendee spoke against the proposal, but voiced support for the concept behind it, citing her opposition to addressing both IPv4 reclamation and RSA compliance in the same proposal. She went on to state that she would support these two facets being separated into different proposals. Owen replied that he believed the issues to be somewhat related, and that presenting them together as part of the same policy was exactly his intent.
• An attendee speaking in favor of the proposal cited one of the reasons for his support was the ability for a legacy space holder to do some good for the community – by returning address space – and not be required to sign an RSA.
• An attendee speaking against the proposal stated that his reason was the lack of a requirement to sign a contract, whether RSA or other document. He added that even if the contract did not specify any specific terms that the legacy holder had to meet, it was better to at least get something in writing.
• An attendee stated that he had been in support of this policy until the release by ARIN of the Legacy RSA, and added that if there were legacy space holders unwilling to sign such an RSA, the solution did not lie in changing policy.

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.

2007-21: PIv6 for legacy holders with RSA and efficient use

Speaker: Scott Leibrand, Proposal Author

Introduction: PDF

Presentation: PDF
Transcript

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

• Advisory Council shepherds: Suzanne Woolf and Ron da Silva
• Introduced on PPML on 30 July 2007, designated as a formal policy on 28 August 2007. 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]

Scott Leibrand, 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 for clarification on the requirement for “a direct IPv4 assignment,” specifically did that mean one or all, and did they have to show efficient use of those existing assignments. Scott Leibrand replied that it was his intent that they must demonstrate efficient use of all their assignments. The attendee responded that perhaps that needed to be better explained in the proposal text. Later in the discussion, this was once again raised and upon another question from the audience, Scott Leibrand stated that he would like to hear from anyone who thought there was a significant difference between “a” or “all” in terms of direct IPv4 assignments.
• An attendee spoke in favor of moving this policy forward and having the ARIN Advisory council fix some of the ambiguities in the proposal text.
• Speaking in favor of the proposal, an attendee suggested that perhaps the requirements could be relaxed to include any organization that currently has an ASN. Scott Leibrand responded that there is a completely separate proposal that broadens the conditions for getting IPv6 address space and that is probably a separate issue.
• An attendee spoke against the proposal, stating that he believed route table bloat could become an issue and that this proposal really wouldn’t have much benefit in encouraging IPv6 deployment. Scott replied that it was intended to encourage those organizations that currently have a /24 in IPv4 addresses and are using that for provider independence to get IPv6, since they could get the same type of provider independence. The attendee stated that he agreed, but that was a short term encouragement with negative long term consequences.
• An attendee spoke in favor of the proposal noting that this kind of encouragement to move to IPv6 is more important than the consequence of mild additional bloat in the routing tables.
• An attendee asked ARIN staff if they had any statistics on the number of potential recipients under IPv4 that would be affected by this policy. Scott Leibrand added that, specifically, it would helpful to know about /24 and /23 assignments and allocations. Leslie Nobile, ARIN Director of Registration Services, replied that she did not currently have those numbers but that she would be able to provide them later. Later in the discussion, an attendee stated that after consulting some outside research and having received a response from ARIN staff, it was estimated that there were about 20,000 legacy and non-legacy /24s in the database.
• John Curran held a straw poll on amending the proposal being discussed to replace “of a direct IPv4 assignment” with “of all direct IPv4 assignments.” Upon receipt of the results of the straw poll, he stated that by consensus of the community, the proposal was so amended.

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 - LACNIC

Speaker: Ricardo Patara

Presentation: PDF[

Transcript](/vault/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XX/ppm2_transcript/#anchor_7)

Ricardo Patara 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 in the 29 economies LACNIC serves. He noted a high increase of number of members in 2007 due to an agreement that made members of the NIR in Brazil members of LACNIC.
• Staff has continued to grow in 2007 and has been redistributed in response to strategic planning to better meet the expectations of the community. Changes are in keeping with LACNIC’s new vision and Mission Statement.
• LACNIC X which took place in Isla Margarita, Venezuela and had 325 participants from 29 countries. Other groups participated in LACNIC X including: ccTLDs, Internet Exchange Points, Security Group, IPv6 task force. Eleven proposals were presented, and six reached consensus. He highlighted LAC-2007-07 Global Policy Distribution Remaining IPv4 Space , which is essentially the same policy proposal that was presented earlier.
• Current projects underway include: +Raices, which has installed five guest root servers, and has the capacity for two more; the FRIDA Program, which is a partnership among LACNIC, IDRC from Canada and ISOC; and participation in a jointly sponsored Internet Day in El Salvador.
• LACNIC and ARIN signed an agreement with the Caribbean Telecommunications Union in order to improve collaboration in the Caribbean region.
• LACNIC deployed an IPv6 portal to give the community information about how to start the transition to IPv6. Reported on eLAC-2007, a set of measurable objectives related to the development of the Information Society in LAC region.

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• An attendee inquired about the nature of the relationship between LACNIC and local NIRs. She questioned if the NIRs have an independent policy process. Ricardo replied that the NIRs existed before LACNIC, and though they meet independently, they only have input on policy changes within the framework of LACNIC.
• Ray Plzak clarified that the NIRs in question are NIC Mexico and NIC Brazil. Before the creation of LACNIC, they were in the ARIN region, and considered to be delegated registries. At that time, they were administrators of address space and subject to all policies developed in the region, and in essence that is what transferred over into LACNIC.

IPv6 IAB/IETF Activities Report

Speaker: Thomas Narten

Presentation: PDF

Transcript

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

Highlights:

• There’s been a fair amount of activity in the areas of routing and addressing space and how to deal with the route scaling problem, with about 9 separate proposals in the Routing Research Group. ARIN community members should join that effort, info is available at http://www.irtf.org/charter?gtype=rg&group=rrg
• 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)
• The shim6 Working group also currently has the following active documents:
  • “Applicability Statement for the Level 3 Multihoming Shim Protocol” (shim6-applicability)
  • “Default Locator-pair selection algorithm for the SHIM6 protocol” (locator-pair-selection)“Socket Application Program Interface (API) for Multihoming Shim” (multihome-shim-api)
• The IPv6 Working Group has closed and 6man Working Group has been created with the focus of maintaining and revising current specifications. New IPv6 work will have to go through BOF process. The 6man Working Group has four active working group documents and four RFCs
  • “Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)” (RFC 4861)
  • “IP Version 6 over PPP” (RFC 5072)
  • “Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6” (RFC 4941)
  • “IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration” (RFC 4862)
• The v6 Operations Working Group has two documents in IESG review and eight new RFCs.
• The DNS Operations Working group has six active documents, one in IESG review and one recent RFC.
• The DNS Extensions Working Group has mostly completed its work on DNSSEC, and is shifting to a maintenance mode. It has seven active documents, two in IESG review, and five recent RFCs.
• Operational Security Capabilities for IP Networks has four active documents, two in IESG processing and one published RFC.
• The Secure Inter-Domain Routing Working Group has six active documents, but nothing has been sent yet to IESG
• The Global Routing Operations seems to have lost all momentum and has been largely inactive in the last six months.
• The BOF schedule for IETF Vancouver in December is not yet out, but you can look at the wiki http://tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki to see what may be discussed

There were no questions or comments from the floor.

2007-13: Removal of ISP Immediate Need from End-User

Speaker: Owen DeLong, Proposal Co-author

Introduction: PDF

Presentation: PDF
Transcript

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

• Advisory Council shepherds: Stacy Taylor and Leo Bicknell
• Introduced on PPML on 25 April 2007, designated as a formal policy on 18 May 2007. 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]

Owen DeLong, as one of the authors, continued with the presentation of the proposal. He provided a summary of the proposal and the rationale behind it.

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• After some discussion between the author, attendees, and staff, the author withdrew this proposal from consideration.

2007-22: Expand timeframe of Additional Requests

Speaker: Dan Alexander, Proposal Author

Introduction: PDF

Presentation: PDF
Transcript

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

• Advisory Council shepherds: Marla Azinger and Matt Pounsett
• Introduced on PPML on 14 August 2007, designated as a formal policy on 28 August 2007. 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]

Dan Alexander, 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 stated support of the proposal, despite initial concerns over a run on address space. She stated that with the vetting of requests by ARIN staff, she was comfortable with the proposal. Another attendee stating support of the proposal did note that adoption of this proposal could cause issues immediately prior to depletion of the free pool of IPv4 address space.
• An attendee voiced opposition to the proposal, stating his reason as the high potential for it to cause a run on IPv4 address space.
• An attendee speaking in favor of the proposal stated that fairness near the end of the IPv4 free pool is not possible, and this proposal would help to maintain better aggregation.
• An attendee stated that he tended towards supporting the proposal because while it allowed requests for up to 12 months of address space, when the available space is much less, there’s nothing in the proposal that says ARIN staff can’t hand out less space than requested.

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.

2007:14: Resource Review Process

Speaker: Stephen Sprunk, Proposal Co-author

Introduction: PDF

Presentation: PDF
Transcript

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

• Advisory Council shepherds: Robert Seastrom and Leo Bicknell
• Introduced on PPML on 1 May 2007, designated as a formal policy on 24 July 2007. 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]

Stephen Sprunk, as one of the authors, 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 of the authors if they had given any thought to how ARIN staff would operationally engage in reviews, for example is it the intent they just look at possibly fraudulent requests, or would they engage in random sampling. Stephen Sprunk replied that the exact details were intentionally left out of policy, and that it would be left up to the ARIN Board and staff to decide how to proceed based on available staff resources. He added that it was his belief that there were low-hanging fruit that could be easily reviewed and that other more specific suggestions could be submitted through the ACSP.
• John Curran asked for a clarification from the authors, setting the example of a routine audit having been completed and a month later staff received information leading them to believe another audit was necessary, would the proposal permit that? Stephen responded that there existed no limitations in the proposal to such an audit if there is a belief of possible fraud. Owen DeLong, as the other co-author, added that the 12-month limit is only relevant when there is no indication of fraud and ARIN is just doing a routing review. He also added that it was the intent that these not be carried out more often than every twelve months, and it certainly wasn’t the intent to review everyone every twelve months.
• An attendee stated that he was against the proposal because he thought the 12-month window was too short, as the review itself might take up to twelve months. When asked by John Curran for a time frame that was more to his liking, the attendee replied it would take some more study but that 24-months occurred to him as a better time frame.
• An attendee, speaking against the proposal as written, asked for clarification from the author on how this applied to IPv6, and specifically the IPv6 PI address space timeframe of 5 years. Stephen replied that it was the intent that if such a review was deemed necessary in the first year, ARIN staff would understand that there existed another 4 years to complete the assignments required, and there really wouldn’t be any action taken. Upon further discussion, John Curran pointed out that even in cases where after 5 years the organization hadn’t completed its required 200 assignments, there’s no definition of consequences in this policy for that type of case.
• An attendee voiced support for the proposal, citing that though some thought the timeframe was too short, the policy states that another review can’t be undertaken until 12-months after the completion of a previous audit.
• An attendee who was against the proposal, asked for clarification on a number of issues, including that the proposal states that resources that are legacy or in active use are not subject to revocation and whether that meant that legacy space the wasn’t in active use could be revoked. Stephen Sprunk replied that may be more an issue for ARIN Counsel to respond to, and that exactly what ARIN could do in such cases seemed unclear. The attendee asked a second question regarding the following text in the proposal: “utilization of legacy resources shall be considered during a review to assess overall compliance,” and what the authors meant by “compliance.” Stephen replied that the idea was when an organization held both legacy and non-legacy resources, then ARIN would look at the utilization of both, and legacy resources couldn’t be revoked, if there was more space than could be justified, ARIN could potentially take away non-legacy resources.
• An attendee stated his support of the proposal, citing the reason that it actually put limits on how often ARIN could engage in such audits in a way that doesn’t currently exist.
• An attendee spoke in favor of the proposal, and added that in regards to the 6-months to effective return, that if an organization had so much space, and they weren’t actively using it, if they couldn’t renumber out of that space in that time, that was their fault.
• There was some discussion and clarification on the issue of the authors’ intent as to the amount of space to be returned out of various size blocks. A concern was raised by an attendee that depending on the circumstances organizations returning blocks could increase deaggregation.
• Ray Plzak asked ARIN Counsel to speak to an issue raised by an attendee, specifically if the NRPM was more restrictive on ARIN than the RSA, which would take precedence? Steve Ryan, ARIN Counsel, replied that any discrepancies between the RSA and the NRPM would likely result in confusion and disagreements, likely only settled in court. John Curran, as Chairman, replied that if a situation developed where the NRPM and RSA were not in agreement, the Board could choose to resolve the issue by updating the RSA.
• An attendee asked for a clarification on whether the audit that was done when an organization initially requests IP address space counted as a review under this proposal. Leslie Nobile, ARIN Director of Registration Services, replied that it was her understanding that it would.
• There then was some discussion on the issue of a 12-month window between audits and a 24-month window. The authors agreed to amend their proposal based on the results of the straw poll.

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 - Morning Session

Moderator: John Curran

Transcript

The floor was open for an open microphone session with John Curran as moderator.

Highlights:

• An attendee suggested that the policy process be changed to give the Advisory Council discretion to act on policies and on substantive changes to policies without bringing them through the physical meeting. Discussion then ensued on this issue amongst many attendees and covered various aspects of improving flexibility over the current process.
• An attendee spoke to remind attendees that a consultation under the ACSP was currently open and invited participation by those present.
• An attendee spoke in favor of the idea of a more modern and interactive web-based format for the PPML, as prompted by a question in the survey at the Cyber Café. Another attendee added that he was in favor of this as well, as long as announcements of important events and issues were still made to mailing lists.
• An attendee made a suggestion for a policy which would allow community-based internet resource allocation as opposed to network-based. Discussion occurred with multiple attendees voicing support and opposition to the suggestion.

RIR Update - RIPE NCC

Speakers: Axel Pawlik

Presentation: PDF

Transcript

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

Highlights:

• With the help of outside consultants completed and tested a business continuation plan, which was tested successfully in September.
• A number of management and executive retreats have been held to deal with issues including vision and strategy, operational functions, and IPv4 exhaustion. Ongoing Processes include TTM, RIS, Hostcount++, ENUM, k rootserver in the RIPE Network Coordination Centre and preparation for resource transfers.
• Regarding number resource certification at RIPE, this is being driven by a community-approved activity plan. A member task force has been established and reported at RIPE 54
• RIPE continues to engage in active outreach to its members and within its region, and membership has surpassed 5200, with the strongest growth in Russia The second Middle Eastern Network Operators Group (MENOG) will take place in November 2007 in Doha, Qatar in conjunction with the RIPE regional meeting..
• Continuing to reach out to governments in the RIPE region, specifically holding government roundtables and participation in a number of related activities.
• RIPE 54 was well attended and successful, and the next meeting will be 22-26 October 2007 in Amsterdam.

There were no questions or comments from the floor.

2007-25: IPv6 Policy Housekeeping

Speaker: Leo Bicknell, Proposal Author

Introduction: PDF

Presentation: PDF
Transcript

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

• Advisory Council shepherds: Lea Roberts and Stacy Taylor
• Introduced on PPML on 17 August 2007, designated as a formal policy on 5 September 2007. 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]

Leo Bicknell, 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 so far on PPML.

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• An attendee spoke in favor of the proposal, noting that it allowed sparsely allocating based on organizations coming back and getting more blocks, which may not happen anytime soon, but it could happen in the future.
• An attendee spoke against the portion of the policy that requires the requester to be a known ISP or have a plan to make 200 end-site assignments within 5 years, stating that he was opposed to the specific number 200 because the number could be very small but still qualify as an ISP. He suggested that known ISP could be better defined as an organization that had received a direct allocation. Leo Bicknell replied that this proposal was merely an attempt to remove anything that was in conflict or ambiguous, and that necessitated basing it on what was already in policy. He added that changing the definition further was likely something for a separate proposal. The attendee stated that he believed the proposed change to the HD-ratio was a substantial change and one he objected to. John Curran asked for clarification from ARIN staff on this issue, and Leslie Nobile, ARIN Director of Registration Services, replied that yes, it was ARIN staff’s understanding that this change would deviate from how assignments are currently done, as currently there is no criteria, and this policy would give ARIN staff something to base evaluations of requests on. John asked if the proposal would mean staff would be more aggressive or less aggressive than current practice, and Leslie replied that it would be more aggressive.
• An attendee spoke in favor of the proposal, stating that the minor changes it does make address issues that needed to be addressed either to more closely match the original policy’s intent or to provide for better implementation.
• An attendee voiced support of the proposal, and noted surprise that the HD-ratio of .94 was not being applied across the board currently.
• An attendee suggested that under section J, where it says all /56 and larger assignments, he would prefer to a requirement that any assignment be registered, even if it isn’t displayed in WHOIS, as that information may be needed in the future. Leo Bicknell replied that, as stated previously, his intent was to simply remove conflicts and ambiguities, not substantially change current policy. Asked for clarification, Leo stated that he would be willing to amend this part if there was consensus to do so. An attendee, speaking in favor of the proposal as written, spoke in opposition to this suggested change, citing the editorial nature of this proposal and being in opposition to suggestions that introduced substantive changes. Additional attendees made similar comments in opposition to this proposed change.
• An attendee asked about the wording in the proposal of “200 end-site assignments” as opposed to “200 assignments” that is in the current policy. Leo Bicknell replied that it was intended to clear up confusion on the issue of the size of those assignments that occurred after a previous policy proposal was implemented. John Curran asked ARIN staff if it was their understanding that this portion of the proposal would apply only to organizations making assignments, and not to organizations making reallocations to ISPs. Leslie replied that it was staff’s understanding that it was limited to assignments to end-sites. The attendee then voiced her opposition to the proposal. Additional discussion occurred on this subject, with a suggestion made to replace “end-site assignments” with “delegations,” but concerns were raised about this making the policy more permissive and usage of terms undefined within the policy manual. “200 assignments and allocations” was also suggested, but the concern about introducing substantive changes was again made.
• At the request of an attendee, John Curran made a point of information to ARIN staff on the question of if the proposed text for 6.5.5.1.d was changed to the existing known ISP in the ARIN region, or have a plan for making at least 200 end-site assignments to other organizations, does that affect whether you’d have to SWIP these? Leo Bicknell, in clarification, pointed out the text mentioned is not changed from what is currently in effect, and so no change would be indicated in SWIP requirements. Off-mike, Leslie Nobile replied that this was correct.
• An attendee, speaking in favor of the proposal, noted that he would however prefer language clean-up on the issue of references to the size of IP address blocks as there are inconsistencies in the proposed text. He added that he would prefer the terms “longer prefix” and “shorter prefix” as he believed those to be clearer and better understood. Another attendee spoke in favor of this change.

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.

2006-7: Changes to IPv6 initial allocation criteria

Speaker: Jordi Palet Martinez, Proposal Author

Introduction: PDF

Presentation: n/a
Transcript

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

• Advisory Council shepherds: Lea Roberts and Robert Seastrom
• Introduced on PPML on 11 October 2006, designated as a formal policy on 13 October 2006. This proposal had previously been discussed during the ARIN XIX policy cycle, where there was community consensus to revise the proposal. 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 spoke in opposition to the proposal stating the he did not see the need for it. Another attendee later stated similar feelings about the proposal, and stated that perhaps later, if a significant need could be demonstrated, it could be revisited.
• An attendee voiced support for the concept of the proposal, stating that there was a need to better address requirements for new ISPs. Jordi Palet Martinez added that the current requirement of a plan for 200 assignments in the ARIN region had been removed in three other RIR regions.
• An attendee asked of ARIN staff if they had received requests for IPv6 PI space that’s greater than /48 and have they granted any? Leslie Nobile, ARIN Director of Registration Services, replied that yes, they’d received quite a few requests, and issued the space, with the largest block being a /40.
• A question was raised by an attendee on how ARIN staff currently evaluates an organization as a “known ISP.” Leslie responded that without specific direction in policy, current practice was that a known ISP was an organization in the ARIN region that has been a subscriber member for at least one year, and has reassignments registered to customers.

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

Speakers: Sanford George, NRO NC Member from the ARIN Region

Presentation:PDF

Transcript

Sanford George 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:

• Two new members have been elected: Vincent Ngundi from the AFRINIC region and today Jason Schiller from the ARIN region. They will replace Ali Badiel and Sanford George respectively effective 1 January 2008.
• Raimundo Beca has been reappointed to the ICANN Board of Directors, and Hartmut Glaser was appointed to the ICANN NomComm
• Two new potential global policies are in the queue regarding allocation of remaining IPv4 space and Allocation of ASN blocks from IANA to RIRs These proposals will begin to be processed at the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles, CA 29 October-2 November 2007.
• Outreach workshops were held in Lisbon, Portugal in March 2007 and San Juan, Puerto Rico in September 2007.

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• An attendee thanked Sanford for his service on the NRO NC.

IANA Activities Report

Speakers: Leo Vegoda

Presentation:PDF

Transcript

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:

• The new IANA website is nearly ready for deployment, and offers the same resources as the old site, but it will be easier to navigate.
• IANA has allocated nine /8s to RIRs as of August 2007 – 5 to APNIC and 4 to RIPE. A number of allocations have also been returned to IANA
• There has been a request for an update to ip6.arpa.
• IANA will take administrative and technical control of in.addr.arpa from ARIN along with the new mcast.arpa zone. Both will be managed in-house.
• DNSSEC will be signed and deployment is continuing. Details on the IEPG presentation on the systems can be found at: http://www.iepg.org/2007-07-ietf69/DNSSEC_at_IANA_IETF.pdf
• There is a new IPv4 registry format, and IANA wants to remove “various registries” in favor of more specific detail.

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• Geoff Huston asked how IANA will track legacy /8s in a-space if they remove “various registries” from the IPv4 listings, as there is no relevant or current WHOIS information. Leo deferred to David Conrad who replied that this issue is still being discussed internally.
• Mark Kosters asked if there was information on breakage in addr.arpa due to DNSSEC deployment. Leo knows of no reported problems, and David Conrad suggested that these concerns should be raised in the DNS-OP working group. Problems would need to be raised to the IAB Directorate.

## 2007-24: IPv6 Assignment Guidelines

Speaker: Leo Bicknell, Proposal Co-author

Introduction: PDF

Presentation: PDF
Transcript

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

• Advisory Council shepherds: Ron da Silva and Stacy Taylor
• Introduced on PPML on 17 August 2007, designated as a formal policy on 5 September 2007. 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]

Leo Bicknell, as one of the authors, continued with the presentation of the proposal. He noted the proposal had been revised with a minor wording change, provided a summary of the proposal, and the rationale behind it.

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• John Curran asked for feedback on the author’s change in wording. An attendee replied that the wording change implied no negative consequence if not carried out, and also cited that the original intent of this was to gain experience in this area. Leo Bicknell replied that while there hasn’t been a lot of experience in this area, there has been some operational experience and this change is based on that. Another attendee suggested that the change should be to “may” instead of “can.” Other attendees voiced support for “will.” After the discussion, the author decided to abandon the revision, and proceed with the proposal as originally worded.
• Clarification was sought by an attendee on the timing of the review of reassignments, and Leslie Nobile, ARIN Director of Registration Services, replied that currently ARIN does not review any IPv6 reassignments. She added that staff automatically allows them to be processed through, and that though that may be a requirement in the policy, it’s not something ARIN has applied to date. A follow-up question was asked by an attendee, specifically, is the reason that they are not being reviewed due to the lack of clear guidelines or some other reason. Leslie replied that there are no clear guidelines, and that she believed that none of the RIRs are reviewing IPv6 reassignments for that reason. Later in the discussion, Sunny Chendi from APNIC clarified that they do verify reassignments greater than a /48, and that if they don’t submit information at the time, it is reviewed when they come back for additional resources.
• An attendee spoke in favor of the proposal, stating that he did not believe it presented any problems.
• An attendee, speaking against the proposal, asked for clarification on the rationale behind the removal of so much text from existing policy. Leo replied that the motivation for this proposal was that a number of individuals, including a number of members of the Advisory Council and Board of Trustees, reviewed the current text and had the same interpretation – there’s no real “policy” here and nothing ARIN can implement. He added it was fine text, but that it didn’t belong in the policy manual. The attendee stated that he believed much of that text provided context in which the rest of the policy could be better understood. Scott Bradner, Secretary of the ARIN Board of Trustees, stated that the issue of guidance being supplied along with policy was recognized by the Board and that it is being worked on. John Curran added that the work being done would make it easier to cross-reference the policy text with the original proposal and other information.
• An attendee voice support for the proposal, but noted that she did not believe it provided enough guidance to staff on what exactly they should be reviewing. Later in the discussion, she likened the reassignment review requirement to the requirement in IPv4 that ARIN staff review /19 or larger assignments, noting that there are no specific guidelines for that IPv4 review either. The question of how the review under IPv4 happens was raised, and Leslie replied that in that situation, staff refers to section 4.3.3 of the NRPM and its requirement for 25 percent immediate utilization and 50 percent utilization within one year. The question was redirected to the situations described in 4.2.3.5, where it specifically discusses reviews of /19s and /18s or greater. Leslie replied that ARIN software automatically stops reassignments larger than /18 or /19 depending on whether they are medium or smaller ISP and staff then question them, the basis for that review is the 25 percent, 50 percent utilization, per section 4.3.3.
• An attendee spoke in opposition to the proposal, citing a number of issues, including concern about the /48 threshold for reassignments.
• An attendee asked if the proposal were adopted, when would the staff review the reassignments greater than a /48. Leslie replied that it was her understanding that it would be carried out at the time of reassignment, which is why that was one of the questions in the staff comments. She added this was a confusing issue, as current policy says the RIR is not concerned with the initial reassignment size from an ISP to their customer, but says on a subsequent reassignment, staff should be monitoring anything larger than a /48. After additional discussion, the attendee restated his understanding of the responses as the policy authors’ intent is that this could be reviewed at time of initial allocation, at time of reassignment of /47 or greater, or at time of request for additional allocation, and ARIN staff is saying that they would at least do it at the time of /47 or larger reassignment. This was confirmed by a number of attendees. Leo added that the intent was to make this work as much like the /29 boundary in IPv4 as possible.
• An attendee speaking in opposition to the proposal stated that the proposal would markedly change the original text counter to the intent, in that the intent was so we could monitor what was going on. Leo added that this proposal does not change the fact that ISPs still will have to enter their assignments in SWIP. Another attendee stated that they would like to see this more expressly called out in the proposal.
• An attendee raised a question about the text in the current policy regarding a minimum value of a /64 for a reassignment and that is not in the proposal text, noting that this seemed to be a substantive change. Leo replied that those numbers were guidelines and unenforceable, and the size of a reassignment is up to the ISP. Leslie Nobile added a point of information, stating that ARIN staff does use the guidelines when reviewing requests for initial allocations and when looking at the size of reassignments. Additional discussion then ensued on the issue of a repository for community guidance on policy, with a member of the Advisory Council stating that this is a work in progress. An attendee asked ARIN staff if the removal of NRPM Section 6.5.4.1 was going to be problematic for reviewing submissions. Leslie replied that yes it would. Leo asked for clarification on that, as while it was his understanding that staff may want additional criteria from a review perspective, he would have expected it would be easier, as anything /48 or longer isn’t a concern. Leslie responded to clarify that ARIN staff uses those guidelines when reviewing initial requests for IPv6 allocations, not for reassignments, as ARIN is not reviewing reassignments at this point.
• An attendee spoke in favor of the proposal, but noted that perhaps a straw poll at the end of discussion regarding leaving in the guidelines, as well as the change of “will” to “may,” might be appropriate. Leo added that he had hoped the creation of a document with operational guidance would be further along when he created this proposal and that was why he had removed the guidelines. He added that he would not be opposed to a friendly amendment of adding back to this text the line that starts with “The following guidelines may be useful but they are only guidelines” and the three bullet points following that in the existing text.

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 Support Among Commercial Firewalls

Speakers: Dave Piscitello

Presentation:PDF

Transcript

Dave Piscitello gave a report on a survey done by the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee to determine IPv6 transport support and security service availability among commercial firewall products. The survey did not include personal firewall software or commodity broadband access devices.

Highlights:

• Support for IPv6 transport and security services is available from commercial firewalls for all market segments.
• Firewall products that support IPv6 transport generally provide (some form of traffic inspection), event logging, and IP Security (IPsecv6).
• Availability of advanced security features is lagging in SOHO and SMB segments and strongest in the LE/SP segment.
• IP version 6 (IPv6) transport is not broadly supported by commercial firewalls.
• Across all market segments, less than one in three products support IPv6 transport and security features.
• Support among the firewall market share leaders improves this figure somewhat.
• What can we extrapolate from these results? “Are we prepared to deploy IPv6”? Until the resources are available to secure these networks, we won’t be able to get users to migrate from v4 to v6.

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• Jordi Palet questioned the difference between “6 to 4” and “6 in 4” and suggested that “6 in 4” was the intended statement and that by his research this was well supported by currently available technology. Dave replied that he appreciated the point of clarification and his intention was “6 in 4” and that he would be happy to discuss it further outside of session with Jordi, but that he stood by his findings.
• An attendee asked if the slides would be available on the ARIN website. Dave replied that he had brought the slides to the meeting and would be making them available to ARIN for posting.

Open Microphone

Moderator: John Curran, ARIN Chairman of the Board

Transcript

• A request was made for a straw poll with regard to language in the NRPM specifically whether to use “bigger, smaller”, “longer, shorter”, or “more specific, less specific” in order to determine which set is the most preferred and understood. John Curran stated that there is an active discussion going on with the Board and staff right now about the NRPM and things that could be done to improve it, including standardizing this specific terminology. He added that once it was made consistent, it would a simple matter for the community to make its preference known.
• Cathy Aronson, ARIN Advisory Council, asked for feedback on what to do in situations when a policy proposal is submitted to the mailing list and gets wholeheartedly negative feedback before the AC meets to consider whether or not to give it a formal proposal number. She added that personally she tends to err on the side of bringing it to the community by giving the proposal a formal number to allow further discussion. She said the AC has had many discussions about this and is unsure how the community would like it to proceed in such cases, specifically do they believe it is a waste of time to bring to the meeting or should it be brought anyway because the discussion might prove valuable? There was discussion on this topic from multiple attendees.
• Dan Alexander, ARIN Advisory Council, offered a point of information in relation to an earlier open microphone session about better means to solicit feedback from the community outside of the Public Policy Meetings. He stated that earlier in the year, the Advisory Council had requested ARIN staff to develop a means to poll the mailing list and they’ve done this and it is at their disposal. He added that it was never intended to be a forum for votes on policy proposal, but is suitable if someone is looking to collect feedback from the community. He concluded by stating that if someone were interested in this, they can reach out to an AC member.

Closing Announcements and Adjournment

Speaker: Ray Plzak, ARIN President and CEO

Transcript

Ray Plzak made closing announcements and again thanked One Connect IP for ARIN XX network connectivity and Cyber Café support. He offered a reminder on the Members Meeting, which would take place the following day, and to which all attendees were invited. He reminded attendees to complete their surveys to be entered in the raffles, and thanked Shaw for its prize donation. He concluded by thanking all of the meeting attendees for participating and hoped they would return for the Members Meeting tomorrow.

Sponsors