ARIN II Members Meeting - October 16, 1998
- Call to Order
- Adoption of the Agenda and the Minutes
- Treasurer's Report
- IP Statistics
- ARIN Engineering Department Report
- Advisory Council Update
- IPv6 Deployment
- Legacy Address Space
- Internet Governance
- Member Services at ARIN
- Solicitations for the Purchase of Address Space
The meeting was called to order by ARIN Board Chairman, John Curran, at 9:00 PDT. Other Board of Trustees members present included Scott Bradner, Ken Fockler, Don Telage, and ARIN President Kim Hubbard. Advisory Council members present, included Bill Darte, Michael Dillon, Hank Kilmer, John Klensin, Guy Middleton, Alec Peterson, Jeremy Porter, Dave Whipple, and Cathy Wittbrodt. A total of seventy-six attendees were present. Following the call to order, John introduced ARIN President, Kim Hubbard.
After issuing a general welcome to all attendees, Kim asked for a review of the agenda and called for suggested additions; there being none, the agenda was adopted. The next order of business was the acceptance of the minutes from the March 20, 1998 meeting, which have been available on the members web site since April. There being no objection, the minutes were accepted as recorded.
Kim introduced ARIN Treasurer Ken Fockler, who presented the Treasurers Report, consisting of three selected pages from the outside audit completed in August by the firm of Tate and Tryon. The reports presented included a Balance Sheet, listing assets and liabilities, an Income Statement and a Statement of Cash Flow.
After a period of discussion, members expressed their preference through a show of hands to post the Balance Sheet, Income Statement, and Statement of Cash Flow on the public web site, while reserving budget information for the members' web site. The last request relating to the presentation of financial data was made by John Brown, who asked if members might receive a breakdown of member dues expenditures. Kim agreed to provide such a breakdown to the members in the near future.
Kim then introduced Cathy Clements, a Senior IP Analyst, who shared with members some statistics on activities related to allocations and assignments of IP numbers and ASNs. The slide presentation that accompanied Cathy's presentation will be made available on the members' web page as soon as possible. Asked to provide feedback on statistics that might be of interest in the future, members suggested that they would like to see statistics on the average size of allocations made. In addition, some members reported that they would like to see statistics on percentages of approvals against total incoming requests as well as average turnaround times on requests. There was some discussion about creating a statistic for average think time per transaction - the length of time it takes to complete a full transaction with all required information successfully exchanged.
One attendee brought up the issue of recent attempts by requesters, turned down by ARIN for address space, to solicit organizations holding IP addresses, offering to buy addresses from them. This led to a discussion of ARIN's criteria, the issue of filters, and justification for obtaining a routable block. Scott reported that these solicitations are coming from people who do not understand CIDR. John indicated that this is a valid topic and recommended that we take time later in the session to allow the membership to explore this issue. The item was duly added to the agenda for the day.
The final question relating to the IP Statistics presentation was made in the form of a request to obtain statistics on the number of automated responses vs. personal responses created by the IP department in the course of their customer interactions.
Anne Gockel, ARIN's Engineering Lead, presented a report on the work being done by her staff. She presented some statistics on the number and average speed of Whois queries and a breakdown of the number of Whois queries coming in through the web server (currently about 10%). She also shared data on the steadily increasing load on the FTP server, indicating that ARIN had added a second server in June of this year to even the load, provide redundancy, and allow for scheduled maintenance.
Anne reported on projects currently underway and provided a schedule projecting completion during 1999. Work on supporting RWhois is underway, but Anne asked the members to provide feedback and suggestions regarding enhancements that could be made to better accommodate their needs.
The discussion surrounded the various engineering initiatives prompted a question as to whether the budget is currently sufficient to sustain the current and projected project load.
Discussion points included the desirability of accepting or soliciting financial and/or technical assistance from corporate donors. Scott indicated that ARIN is open to the idea of accepting assistance in some form, while John said that the Board is aware of the realities of budget limitations and a need to look at options. He acknowledged that one of the greatest challenges is in knowing the prioritization that the members place on projects, urging members to talk to the AC and tell them what they want ARIN to do.
Following this discussion, Anne talked about the plans for the routing registry, once again indicating openness to the needs and ideas of the members. Asked if ARIN's routing registry would change the role of the existing routing registries, Kim replied that Merit may discontinue operation of the routing registry at some point in the future. Other questions followed, including questions about cost, effect on the root servers, and plans for ARIN specific tags.
IPv6 was presented next as a focus area for the engineering staff. For registration activities to begin in 1999, tools, a databases, and other resources must be made ready. Further discussion of database activities included the current effort to migrate from Ingres to Oracle and to complete the clean-up required, including the current effort to eliminate orphan handles - those that do not reference specific ASN or network records. Part of the database effort is directed at the need to provide better support in the future for all activities of the regional registry. Members suggested in the discussion that followed the presentation that with all of the registries currently involved in re-writes of their databases, this might be a time to move toward more cooperation in this effort, to achieve more coordination among the systems. Kim indicated that the registries have agreed to work more closely with one another and to coordinate certain aspects of their respective enterprises.
Resuming after a short break, Kim introduced Alec Peterson, who presented the Advisory Council report. Alec explained the role of the AC as liaison between the Board and the membership. He described the most recent meeting of the AC, held October 15, 1998 in Seattle, as being largely dominated by procedural issues such as electoral and nomination processes, unplanned vacancies, etc. He also mentioned the liberalizing of IP Allocation policy as an issue currently under the recommendation of the AC.
During the next month, a regular election will take place to fill five seats that represent the initial one year terms that will become regular three years terms when filled. These seats are currently held by Michael DeShazo, John Klensin, Guy Middleton, Samir Saad, and Cathy Wittbrodt. In the election, each member or member organization will have one vote for each vacancy, thus five vacancies would require the casting of five votes. In this election, there is also the need to fill the seat vacated by Karl Denninger, who resigned in August. Discussion ensued on the issue of resignations, including circumstances that would require an immediate election as opposed to filling a vacancy at the time of the next regular election. Alec suggested that members use the mailing list to offer suggestions and continue to develop a working policy for special situations.
Having covered the procedural issues, Alec opened the floor for a discussion of liberalizing ARIN's minimal allocation or assignment from the current /19 (subject to the current multi-homing exception) to a /20. The discussion was wide ranging and included questions as to RIPE's and APNIC's minimums, and whether or not such a change should also be extended to multi-homed organizations - effectively lowering the minimum for those organization to a /21 from a reserved /20.
While a representatives of RIPE who was present at the meeting indicated that RIPE will probably choose to retain the /19 as the minimum allocation size, John Curran reminded the members about the differences between the decision policies of RIPE as compared with those of ARIN. In the wide-ranging discussion that followed, many members expressed their opinions about these issues. Scott Bradner indicated his belief that the current work underway in the area of Internet governance is likely to lead to more consistent policies among the registries.
One attendee asked if there was truly a demand for ARIN to issue smaller blocks. The answer, arrived at through member input was a resounding yes. There is a demand for portable space, with ARIN frequently being asked to "loosen up" its requirements. One member, representing a provider from a rural area, suggested that those with small markets are in special need of access to ARIN issued space in increments that do not meet the /19 requirement. This position holds that all providers should have access to portable space. More discussion followed, once again moving into the question of routing policy, routing table overload, and the effect of lowering the minimum allocation by one bit. At the end of the discussion, John Curran spoke to the members and told them, "The AC has sent to the Board, a recommendation to lower by one bit, the minimum allocation; tell us whether you want us to advance, decline, or hold." Following more discussion, a general show of hands addressed the question. In the show of hands, the members favored lowering by one bit, the minimum allocation issued by ARIN. In a further show of hands, there did not appear to be a consensus in favor of then lowering the multi-homed threshold to a /21. The Board, in its next scheduled meeting, will weigh all relevant factors, including member input, in setting a policy on this issue.
The issue of global handles received attention next. Michael Dillon suggested that email addresses are unique identifiers and should be used as global handles. While this is certainly true, it was noted that they are also subject to change periodically and as such, do not provide the consistency needed. A broad discussion ensued, covering such issues as orphaned handles and whether or not deleted handles will be re-used. Anne Gockel indicated that under the present plan they will not be re-used. The next topic of discussion was the desirability or feasibility of ARIN following a policy similar to that of RIPE, of issuing a /19 to all requesters, regardless of justification. The RIPE representative indicated that while they try to discourage most requesters and recommend the use of upstream providers, they do issue a minimum of a /19 to all persistent requesters, without requiring prior usage results. Because the US market is different from the European market, most participants expressed the belief that the effect on the Internet would be considerable, if ARIN were to grant a /19 to all who requested it. Scott Bradner indicated that there would be an immediate impact on the routing tables. CIDR, he said, has two goals, only one of which is conservation of address space. Keeping the routing tables at a reasonable level was at least as important, in his view. Whether changes in routing technology lessens this goal, or not, was discussed. John Curran expressed his belief that we should keep in mind that we must be aware not only of what might happen if we make such a change, but what effect might occur if we do not.
The issue of retrieving unused space was the next topic for consideration. Bill Manning suggested that at this time, there is no reasonable way to get unused space back into the free pool. John asked Paula if RIPE had dealt with this issue and she responded that RIPE takes back space if the registrant fails to pay monies due. They have no policy on retrieving space that is improperly utilized. After more discussion of these issues, Scott asked for a show of hands on the desirability of ARIN adopting a policy on initial allocations that is similar to that of RIPE. Such a policy would allow ARIN to make initial allocations of a minimum of a /19, without requiring evidence of prior utilization of address space. There was virtually no support for ARIN adopting such a policy.
The next presentation was made by Michael O'Neill, ARIN Sr IP Analyst, on the subject of IPv6. Michael provided a technical description of IPv6 addressing as well as an overview of the current plans for deployment via the registries. His presentation was based on the IETF draft that has recently received RFC status. While this draft does not guarantee the final process, it may be used as the basis for registration policy, subject to input from the community as well as changes made by the Regional Internet Registries. In the discussion that followed, it was noted that the IPv6 allocation plan tries to achieve a CIDR like aggregation in the allocation of the new addresses. John Curran noted that if IPv6 were just IPv4 with longer addresses, we would simply repeat the mistakes of the past. In response to questions from the members, issues such as re-numbering and multi-homing under IPv6 were addressed, based on the current state of knowledge on the subject. Scott Bradner, in his position as a Project Manager on the IPv6 Project, indicated that the working group did not solve the routing problems. John Curran addressed the re-numbering concerns that are inherent in hierarchical allocation policies by indicating that the issue has been heavily worked and that pain is lessened under this model.
Having devoted some time to the IPv6 discussion, Kim asked the members to share their thoughts on the charges to be associated with IPv6 allocations. Should we charge, and if so, how much should we charge? Under consideration are the costs associated with enabling ARIN to gear up to handle IPv6 allocations, including staff, systems, and the creation of policy documentation. In addition, there is the ongoing labor expense associated with allocation. The real question is whether the costs associated with IPv6 general readiness should be borne by the whole organization or only by those who will receive allocations. This question led to a general discussion of the qualifications for qualifying to receive sub-TLA allocations. What are transit providers? The Board will discuss this issue further and will report back to the members.
Following this discussion, John Brown addressed the members on the issue of Legacy Addresses. Organizations holding pre-ARIN space must, on occasion, use ARIN time and staff resources when managing their networks. Since these organizations pay no registration fees, they essentially obtain free service when performing modifications, SWIPs, or submitting inaddrs. Throughout the period of discussion, members, Trustees, and AC members exchanged ideas on this topic, eventually concluding that in the end, ARIN could (1) try to impose registration charges on all holders, (2) charge for certain transactions performed by all holders, or (3) allow charges to ARIN customers to absorb the cost of delivering services to legacy holders. Scott Bradner indicated that the new governance organization now forming is likely to offer mechanisms for creating policy in the address field. The issue will continue to receive the attention of the AC and the Board, until a satisfactory approach is determined.
The next report was presented by Board member, Scott Bradner, who discussed the present status of Internet governance. After bringing the members up to date on the activities of the various groups contributing to the overall plan, Scott described the basic structure of the new governing organization, providing the most detail on the part of the structure that will affect ARIN. He indicated that the Address Council will provide advice and develop policy on the address side. It will be up to the registries to submit proposals to the Address Council, who will present the proposals to the Board for approval. Scott indicated that at the present time, it appears that the Board will be comprise of very high level members of the business community, likely to be lacking in technical knowledge of IP issues. Representatives of the three regional registries will meet in a few weeks to prepare a proposal for the address supporting organization. Scott expressed his belief that if members and leaders from ARIN and the other registries fail to create and submit policies in the addressing realm, others will make up policies and impose them.
Following Scott's report, there was a general discussion of the topic. Kim concluded the discussion by stating that part of her job, as President of ARIN, was to make sure that ARIN members will continue to have a say in IP address policies.
At the conclusion of this report, Kim asked the members to provide direction to Member Services at ARIN on what we can do for them. Acknowledging that the key benefit most members seek and find at ARIN is the opportunity to participate, Kim asked if there were other membership benefits they would like to see offered in the future. Kim referenced training and educational support on new areas such as the routing registry and IPv6, as possibilities for the future.
A member suggested that in the future, ARIN might consider holding two-day meetings, so that working groups might coalesce and present prepared responses on the second day for topics addressed during the first phase of the meeting. Issues such as measurement, the routing registry, and the structure of the AC, for example, could be discussed via email by working groups in between meeting times. John Curran suggested that, in order to avoid unwieldy layering, such groups would cover topics, then disband when work is fully explored.
The final topic of the day was an issue involving recent efforts to buy and sell address space. The topic was introduced earlier and added to the agenda. John Klensin began the discussion by stating that several people have contended that IP addresses are saleable real estate and may be bought and sold, asking, "How does ARIN feel about this?" Does ARIN process the transfer of space between entities when no transfer of the whole business is involved? He indicated that this practice is either going on or being attempted. The point was made that this issue should probably be addressed by the new governing authority. Scott Bradner, however, said that it will be the responsibility of the Address Council to provide ICANN with policy instructions on such matters. A vigorous exchange of opinions occurred, culminating in a statement by ARIN Counsel Dennis Molloy to the effect that you cannot sell what you do not own. He referenced contract claim issues founded on RFC 2008, but indicated that these are new issues and must be decided on the basis of discreet and sound business judgements. This topic will continue to receive the attention of both the Board of Trustees and ARIN's Advisory Council.
Following this discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 PM.