Your IP address could not be determined at this time.

ARIN IX Public Policy Meeting - Las Vegas, Nevada - 8-9 April 2002

Minutes of the Public Policy Meeting, Day 1

Monday, April 8, 2002

Call to Order

ARIN President and CEO Ray Plzak opened the first day of the ARIN IX Public Policy meeting at 9:00 a.m. welcoming all those in attendance and making some announcements. The announcements included:

  • Thanks to our sponsor - Cox Communications127 Registrants representing 24 states and 9 countriesOptional informal feedback session during lunch on the ICANN Reform Proposal
  • Information concerning hotel and meeting logistics and the hours of the Registration Services Help Desk and Terminal Room.

Ray also introduced the Board of Trustees and Advisory Council members in attendance and reviewed the meeting agenda. The agenda was adopted without change and the meeting proceeded.

RIRs Coordination and Statistics

Leslie Nobile, ARIN Director of Registration Services, presented an update of joint Regional Internet Registry (RIR) activities, efforts and registrations statistics.

RIR and Emerging RIR Updates

APNIC

Paul Wilson, Director General of APNIC, presented a status report on the activities in the APNIC region.

RIPE NCC

Axel Pawlik, Managing Director of RIPE NCC, presented a status report on the activities in the RIPE NCC region.

LACNIC

Raúl Echeberría, Chairman of LACNIC Interim Board and Board member German Valdez presented a status report on the activities in the emerging LACNIC region.

Address Supporting Organization Address Council Update

ASO AC member Eric Decker presented a status report on the activities of the ASO AC.

Lame Delegation Policy

Ginny Listman, ARIN Director of Engineering, defined the problem and discussed Policy Proposal 2002-01, which would require ARIN to actively identify lame servers, notify respective POCs, and remove delegations that remain lame for a period of 30 days. She discussed suggested procedures for implementing such as policy.

George Michaelson of APNIC provided input on their region's approach to handling the lame delegation issue.

Although there was much discussion regarding the policy no consensus was reached. A call for further discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List (ppml@arin.net) was made.

General consensus:

  • ARIN should implement a policy for monitoring and removing lame delegations from the zone files
  • ARIN should take proactive steps and conduct periodic checks of name servers to determine if they are lame

General comments:

  • The issue of reclamation was raised. ARIN would not use this policy to reclaim address spaceConcern regarding "reachability" was discussed. What may be lame in the ARIN region may be reachable in the other RIR regions. It was proposed that multiple locations query to determine if a server is lameIt was requested that ARIN provide statistics in order to determine the true scope of the problemIt was proposed by ARIN that a "lame delegation" be defined as one in which 50% of the network is not responding.An attendee referenced prior research and commented that since 1997 there has not been a significant increase in the number of lame delegationsThere was much discussion centered on ARIN's proposal regarding notification. It was suggested that ARIN begin the notification process earlier and increase the frequency of the notifications It was noted that invalid POC data might make it difficult to verify incorrect server data
  • ARIN was requested to provide a proposed notification timeline

ICANN: The Case for Reform

ICANN President and CEO Stuart Lynn outlined the proposal for the evolution and reformation of ICANN.

General comments:

  • The question was asked how does one differentiate between technical and operational in regard to the ICANN mission. This discussion was deferred to the informal feedback sessionRay Plzak announced that the RIRs were going to release 50% of the funds being held in escrow for ICANN support
  • In response to a question, it was stated that ARIN's contribution was $242,020

IPv6 Working Group

Anne Lord of APNIC provided a summary of the current version of the IPv6 policy proposal document. This document is the product of a joint RIR and member editorial team.

Thomas Narten, the IPv6 Working Group Chairman led the discussion of the various issues pertaining to IPv6. | Presentation

  • Initial Allocation Size
    • There was a lengthy discussion over the appropriate minimum allocation size. Is the current minimal allocation size of /35 adequate or should ARIN adopt the recommendation of /32 that has been accepted by the APNIC and RIPE NCC regions?

      There was strong sentiment expressed that in regard to the minimum allocation size, ARIN should implement a policy similar to that of APNIC and RIPE NCC

    • By a show of hands (49 yes, 4 no, 0 abstentions) the meeting attendees accepted the proposed minimum allocation size of /32
  • Criteria for Initial Allocation
  • Thomas presented the proposed revision to the initial allocation criteria that has been accepted by APNIC.
    • Organizations requesting address space must be an LIR
    • Organizations requesting address space must not be end sites
    • Organizations requesting address space will provide connectivity for the organizations it has assigned /48s to by advertising such connectivity through the single aggregate allocated to that organization
    • Organizations requesting address space must have a plan for assigning address space (e.g., /48s) to other organizations, with the number of such assignments likely to result in at least 200 such assignments over the next two years
    • Organizations who are granted initial allocations, but after two years no longer satisfy the requirements above, are subject to having their allocations revoked
  • It was noted that although this criteria was developed to increase the likelihood of route aggregation, ARIN like any RIR, could not make a guarantee of routability

    Because the term LIR is not used in the ARIN region, the working group Chair will insert the appropriate language into the document to reflect ARIN terminology
  • By a show of hands (42 yes, 2 no, 2 abstentions) the meeting attendees accepted the proposed criteria for initial allocation
  • Lease-License Model of Allocations
    • In regard to the criteria that "organizations who are granted initial allocations, but after two years no longer satisfy the requirements above, are subject to having their allocations revoked", the following model was proposed for allocations:
      • Addresses are "leased", assignments are not permanentExisting leases are renewed so long as good-faith effort at meeting requirements
      • RIRs reserve the right not to renew
    • The use of the term "lease" was thought to have too many legal consequences and thus the use of the term license was more appropriate
    • By show of hands (39 yes, 4 no, 12 abstentions) the meeting attendees accepted the license model for allocations
  • Subsequent Allocations

  • When the utilization threshold was reached the following principles would apply in making a subsequent allocation:
    • Expand into one bit shorter prefix
    • Expansion of existing address block by one bit is the goal (not second non-aggregatable block)
    • Utilization measured in terms of /48 assignments
    • Shorter prefix possible, given the appropriate justification (evaluate two-year plan)
    • Assignments must be registered in databases, as in IPv4
  • During the discussion it was noted that the language in the document was confusing and that although more work was needed in this area, in general, the principles were acceptable
  • Existing /35 Allocations

Discussion focused on whether or not current holders of /35 allocations should be eligible to have their allocations expanded to a /32. A question arose about whether existing /35 holders that don't meet the eligibility criteria (e.g., those that are end sites rather than LIRs) should automatically have their existing allocations expanded to a /32. While no vote was taken, it was generally agreed that although justification isn't required, the requesting organization still needs to meet the basic requirement.

  • Assignment of Multiple /48s

It was noted that ISPs may be required to assign some end sites more than a single /48. The policy document provides for this by requiring that these requests be reviewed at the RIR level. While there is no experience with this yet, it was generally agreed that once it was gained, policy guidelines could be established thus eliminating the need for the RIR review. There was a discussion on the length of time this review process would be required before adequate experience was gained. While there was no vote taken there was general consensus that this period of time should be two years.

  • Site Definition

An end user (subscriber) is defined as an entity having a business relationship with a provider. The provider advertises the route for the subscriber via his aggregate. It was generally agreed that this definition would be acceptable if the word transit was added before provider and language was added regarding network topology. Thomas volunteered to edit the text and add language concerning network topology.

  • Host-Density (HD) Ratio

There was a general discussion about using the HD ratio as a means of evaluating address space utilization. The HD ratio was described as a means to define the threshold at which point an additional allocation is justifiable. An HD ratio value of .80 was identified as a reasonable value for the construction of utilization thresholds. There was discussion about how the value of .80 was determined. It was noted that although there is no experience in using the HD ratio to determine IPv6 address space utilization thresholds, experience in other number assignment schemes could be used as a starting point. Once experience is gained, then the .80 ratio could be reevaluated. There were no objections to this approach.

  • Global Document As Base

It was proposed that the IPv6 policy document should be used as a basis for ARIN IPv6 policies. It was decided that the next step to be taken would be to revise this document taking into account the discussions and conclusions that were reached during this session.

In a separate presentation, Bob Fink of ESNET presented an overview of the 6bone registry process.

Open Microphone

It was noted that the proposed micro-allocation policy had not been discussed due to lack of time. Consequently this discussion will be held during Tuesday's open microphone session.

Lame Delegations

John Brown, an ARIN member, continued the discussion on lame delegations. He presented slides and proposed a notification timeline that lengthened the process as compared to the ARIN recommended timeline. There was some discussion, but as no consensus was reached it was agreed that further discussion would be held on the DBWG mailing list.

Minutes of the Public Policy Meeting - Day 2

Tuesday, April 9, 2002

Ray Plzak called the meeting to order and reviewed the day's agenda. Brief announcements included a "thank you" to Cox Communications for sponsoring the previous evening's social.

Susan Harris from Merit announced the upcoming joint NANOG/ARIN meeting scheduled for the end of October. Aimed at combining the strengths of both organizations, she noted that one goal of the back-to-back schedule is to attract greater operator community participation in the ARIN public policy discussions.

Community Learning and Education Working Group

Working group chair Bill Darte reviewed the charter of the group and its activities over the past three years. He noted some of the group's contributions: providing direction for the recent website redesign, urging the presentation of tutorials at meetings, and encouraging greater ARIN outreach. These steps have all been institutionalized and are currently being carried out by ARIN staff. Over the past year there has been very little activity on the CLEW mailing list and there has been nominal activity at recent ARIN meetings.

Bill suggested disbanding the working group in favor of utilizing existing mechanisms for feedback such as the member services email role account and the arin-discuss mailing list. As in previous meetings, few opinions were expressed. With no clear direction given by attendees the chair noted that the CLEW working group will go forward and that he would anxiously await initiatives.

S-BGP

Dr. Stephen Kent, Chief Scientist - Information Security for BBN Technologies delivered a presentation entitled "Securing the Border Gateway Protocol (S?BGP)." He described the proposed protocol and ARIN's possible involvement in its implementation.

General comments:

  • Would the data being collected to support S-BGP reveal business relationships between ISPs? Dr. Kent said no, that in fact, this type of information is not required to support S-BGP.There was some concern about the impact that the implementation of S-BGP would have on the ability of small ISPs to conduct their business, particularly if this became required. Dr. Kent noted that there are several U.S. Government task forces studying Internet security and that something like S-BGP could be mandated.There are known weaknesses in BGP that should be corrected prior to implementation of S-BGP.
  • It was noted that the implementation of a certificate authority at the registry would be required to support S-BGP. This certificate authority could be used to support general registry operations.

Database Working Group: Universal WHOIS Update

| Presentation |

Ginny Listman introduced ARIN member Mark Kosters to provide an update on VeriSign's Universal WHOIS projects. Mark discussed the two applications, UWho and the Cross Registry Information Service Protocol (CRISP). UWho is the name of the work VeriSign has committed to in an agreement with ICANN. The object of CRISP is to create a mechanism not a policy.

Stale POC Data

| Presentation |

Ginny Listman defined the problem. Leslie Nobile discussed the current procedure for updating database information. Ginny posed a series of questions before opening the microphone for discussion.

General consensus:

  • Flag or label point of contact (POC) data in WHOIS as stale including the date of review rather than removing the record

    ARIN's Registration Service Department should contact the upstream POC as the first point of contact in resolving stale data issues

    ARIN was asked not to contact downstream customers unless requested to do so by the upstream POC

  • ARIN should be proactive in the cleanup process and the agreed upon method was for ARIN to provide a periodic data dump

General comments:

  • ARIN relies on its customers to provide accurate data

    Stale data will not be a reason for reclamation

    It was suggested that data verification could coincide with certificate authority renewal

    Requiring validation of email addresses would slow the registration process

    AS number contacts are sometimes unaware of the ARIN processes and procedures

    It was suggested that ARIN hold back future allocations in cases where stale data is known to exist. ARIN staff stated that while ARIN would not hold back requested services, it would strongly urge customers to undertake a cleanup process

  • The question of is there a time frame for the data cleanup process was raised. ARIN responded that there is no specific time frame due to the large amount of data that requires cleanup, and that it would continue to work on cleanup until it is completed

RWhois

| Presentation |

Ginny Listman discussed the problems with RWhois and ARIN's proposed approach to addressing them.

General comments:

  • The development of RWhois should be part of the IETF process. It was noted, however, that ARIN membership requested at the April 2001 meeting that it invest resources in correcting RWhois without defining the processChange the database structure without changing the querying mechanismAn off-topic suggestion was given. ARIN should have a specific field in WHOIS that lists the RWhois server in order to standardize the format
  • A suggestion was made for ARIN to post a timeline on the website for RWhois development and release

RIR-ICANN Contract

Ray Plzak announced that the RIRs have agreed to final contract language. The contract has been posted on the website for public comment until May 31, 2002.

Available at http://www.arin.net/library/internet_info/RIR-Contract.pdf

Reporting Utilization Options

| Presentation 1 | Presentation 2 |

ARIN System Engineer Michael O'Neill presented an alternative method for reporting utilization information. In addition to SWIP and RWhois, ARIN will now allow a routing registry database to be used for reporting utilization. ARIN member Tanya Hinman presented how Cable & Wireless will implement this option.

Preparing for Change

| Presentation |

Ginny Listman discussed actions that the ARIN community should be taking to prepare for database conversion.

Handle Generation

| Presentation |

ARIN's new mechanism for generating database handles was presented by Ginny Listman.

General consensus:

  • Add sequence numbers to all POC and network handles
  • Existing network and AS number handles should be regenerated under the new schema

General comments:

  • A question was asked, would changing the handles affect routing policy? ARIN staff responded that adding ARIN handles in the comments field would not impact routing, however it might have to be corrected for consistency.

WHOIS Display

| Presentation |

Ginny Listman referenced a message sent to the DBWG regarding the proposed WHOIS display. She highlighted the enhancements.

General consensus:

  • ARIN should not display the administrative contact in any organization record because of privacy considerations

General comments:

  • ARIN should make the abuse contact mandatory and visible in the WHOIS display

    A question was raised regarding privacy considerations when displaying multiple records in response to a single query. ARIN's reply was that 90% of the records are customers without POC information and that showing parentage with a single query would be the desired response

    ARIN said that they could establish a separate internal WHOIS that contains the administrative contacts

    There was discussion about a members only WHOIS where administrative data would be visible. After further discussion the idea was withdrawn because of privacy concerns

    The off-topic question was asked if ARIN would reject templates if the domain name in the email address does not correlate with the organization name. ARIN responded that since some people outsource their technical administration this would not be a practical approach

    It was noted that since spam is an ongoing problem the community would like to avoid posting private email addresses in WHOIS

    The unresolved issue of listing technical contacts will be further discussed on the DBWG mailing list

  • A suggestion was made to use the public comment section to direct users to specific POCs

Web Based Template Demonstration

Michael O'Neill demonstrated the alpha version of the interactive web based tool for ISP network requests. He solicited input.

General comments:

  • The current web based tool is very similar to the text based templatesA suggestion was made to enhance the tool to make it more helpful and user friendlyA request was made to change the drop down menus to text boxes to allow for a wider range of inputIt was suggested that ARIN add none as a reassignment option, for example to cover web hostingThe question was asked if documents could still be attached. ARIN replied that the web based tool emails the template where attachments can be added and forwarded to hostmasterIt was suggested that ARIN store justification data to facilitate applying for additional allocations. ARIN currently does not store this data
  • The question was asked if percentages instead of numbers could be used in the 3-month projection fields. ARIN responded that either numbers or percentages are acceptable

RFC 2050 Working Group

Working group chair Mark McFadden presented an update on the effort to revise RFC 2050. Mark provided background and current status information.

He encouraged all interested parties to get involved and he specifically asked for input on the order in which the documents should be written.

RTMA Working Group

Working group chair Cathy Wittbrodt gave a presentation authored by Gert Doering of SpaceNet AG entitled "Impressions: An Overview of the IPv6 Routing Table." This presentation provided observations about and an in-depth look at the IPv6 routing table.

Kim Claffy and Andre Broido presented "Internet Expansion, Refinement and Churn". This presentation highlighted research data that included updates on Internet routing growth, allocation and assignment statistics, the definition and analysis of dark space, and squatted space.

Open Microphone

Leslie Nobile reminded the attendees that there was a leftover issue from yesterday afternoon, the micro-allocation policy proposal discussion.

  • Micro-allocation policy proposal 2001-3 | Presentation

    • Mark Kosters presented his proposed revision to policy proposal 2001-3.

      After Mark's presentation the following points were discussed.

      • There should be a separate block for exchange points.

        By show of hands (32 yeas, 0 nays, 0 abstentions) it was agreed that there should be no mention of the routability of the exchange point block.

      • No other services should be delineated

    • By show of hands (32 yeas, 0 nays, 4 abstentions) the meeting attendees accepted the proposed policy with the inclusion of a separate allocation block for exchange points. Mark Kosters was directed to refine the language and present the revised language to the Advisory Council as stipulated in the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process.

There were no additional items of discussion.

Adjournment

Ray Plzak adjourned the meeting shortly after 5:00 p.m..