Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 17 July 2003 [Archived]


Here in the Vault, information is published in its final form and then not changed or updated. As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.



Council Members

  • Alec Peterson, Chairman (AP)
  • Bill Darte (BD)
  • Dale Finkelson (DF)
  • Avi Freedman (AF)
  • Sanford H. George (SHG)
  • Mark Kosters (MK)
  • Lea Roberts (LR)
  • John Sweeting (JS)
  • Cathy J. Wittbrodt (CJW)


  • Dana Argiro
  • Andrew Dul
  • Ron da Silva
  • Stacy Taylor
  • Suzanne Woolf


  • Kevin Martin

ARIN Staff Attendees

  • Richard Jimmerson, ARIN Director of Operations (RJ)
  • Einar Bohlin, Policy Analyst (EB)
  • Thérèse Colosi, ARIN Recording Secretary

1. Welcome

The Chair opened the call at 4:03 p.m. EDT. Roll call was taken and the presence of a quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Bashing

LR requested discussion on the AC’s recommendation to the Board on the Key Signing issue. All agreed to discuss this under Agenda Item 14.

3. Formal Approval of the Minutes of May 8, 2003

DF moved that the ARIN AC adopt the minutes of May 8, 2003 as written. MK seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.

4. Approval of an amendment to the Minutes of April 8, 2003

There was a typographical error in the April AC minutes indicating an incorrect policy proposal number as follows:

Under item number 10, Policy Proposal 2003-6: Micro-Assignments with Sponsorship, it reads:

“…abandon Policy Proposal 2003-6, with the condition that content and feedback from the discussion on 2003-3, be incorporated into this proposal.”

It should read:

“…abandon Policy Proposal 2003-6, with the condition that content and feedback from the discussion related to this policy proposal be incorporated into the review of 2002-3.”

MK moved that the ARIN AC adopt the minutes of April 8, 2003 as amended.

LR seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.

5. Committee Report on 2003-5: RWhois Server Use Requirements

MK stated he would have information on the next teleconference due to extensive modifications that needed to be incorporated from comments from the PPML.

6. Committee Report on 2003-1 Human POC, and 2003-2 Network Abuse

No update available at this time. Will be discussed at next AC teleconference.

7. Committee Report on 2003-3 Residential Customer Privacy

BD stated that the final language had been posted to new website. RJ stated that further clarification was recently requested, and would be posted to the website. This new text will also be discussed at the ARIN Public Policy meeting in October.

8. Committee Report on 2003-4 IPv6 Policy Changes

DF stated that conversations have taken place and that there are themes emerging that are speaking against this policy going into effect. He found a broad consensus that felt putting a policy in place that is not in line with a global v6 policy is not a good plan. He stated that there is no desire among the other RIRs to do anything like the /48 allocations. They feel that other good initiatives that are circulating address the same issue and that currently, it is not hard for people to get numbers. He also stated that the DoD is requiring everything to be v6 capable by year-end.

RJ stated that the existing IPv6 global document editing team mailing list was not dismantled and someone recently sent a message of interest to start a new draft. If this is the intent, RJ stated he will send a message to the list and make sure the AC is added to the mailing list. CJW requested to be added to the AC’s discussion group on this issue as well. DF further stated he had been trying to contact Thomas Narten but had been unsuccessful so far.

The Chair asked for more comments and BD suggested abandoning the AC’s version of the proposal given the above information. LR supported this but asked if the AC’s intent should then be posted to the PPML. The Chair suggested someone post the AC’s intent to the PPML, and the v6 lists with an explanation of why.

9. Committee Report on RIR relationship with IANA

RJ stated that the RIR CEOs are working on document with IANA to be posted for comment. The document is not yet finalized to go to public comment and that ARIN staff would provide the document to the AC when it is available.

10. Committee Report on 2003-9 WHOIS Acceptable Use Policy (AUP)

On June 3rd the AC unanimously agreed, by electronic vote, on the rewording of this policy and posted it to the ARIN website and appropriate mailing lists as a friendly update to the proposal. SG stated that John Brown wanted to include in-addr to WHOIS AUP. This was taken care of, and the in-addr zone is now available on the ARIN FTP site. The policy now has to go to the public policy meeting due to its substantive changes. It is currently posted on the PPML.

11. Confirmation of the electronic vote on the re-drafted wording of 2003-9 WHOIS Acceptable Use Policy (AUP)

DF moved that the ARIN AC confirms their action of electronic vote on June 3rd to approve the re-drafted PP2003-9 for posting to the ARIN website and appropriate mailing lists for further review by the Internet community.

LR seconded this motion. A roll call vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously.

12. Committee Report on 2002-2 Experimental Resource Allocations

No update available at this time. An update will be given on the mailing list and discussed at next meeting.

13. Committee Report on 2002-3 Micro-Assignments

BD provided the following update via email:

MAY03-19 AC

Minimum Allocation:
Chair requested the AC to review Policy 2002-3 Micro-Assignments on the list as BD has worked on modifying the language.

The following verbiage is in play:

If an end-user is not multi-homed, the minimum block of IP address space assigned by ARIN is a /20. If assignments smaller than /20 are needed, end-users should contact their upstream provider.

If an end-user is multi-homed, and has an ARIN assigned ASN, the minimum block of IP address space assigned by ARIN is a /22. Such assignment will be made from a reserve block for this purpose. If multi-homed assignments smaller than a /22 are needed, end users should contact their upstream provider.

BD gave the following opinion: I believe we should recommend this policy as is to the ARIN Board. I further believe that we should assess the impact of this policy’s implementation by # of requests and route table impact for 2 consecutive 6 month periods and if their impact is not believed to be problematic, then a proposal should be made to lower the minimum to /23. Same for /23 until we get to /24 as a minimum. We should also assess the number of allocations that are still multi-homed after 12 months to determine whether there is any change in status of these end nets.

This process as described would be presented as a plan of action as part of the proposal presentation at the Chicago meeting in order to inform participants about our thinking and to get feedback.

CJW wanted it to be clear that there should be more of a justification than just being multi-homed and having an ASN to obtain a /22. She felt they should have some other criteria to be met, consistent with previous usage. All agreed to clarify the criteria in the text. RJ asked if a final call would be sufficient. The AC felt not, that the proposal should be discussed at the ARIN Public Policy meeting for discussion in October.

BD summed up that changes should be made and returned to the Public Policy meeting in October. The changes would be discussed at the next AC teleconference.

MAY03-23 Micro Assignments Discussion Group

Max Allocation:

Regarding the issue of maximum allocation size, the Chair asked what the AC thought of changing the policy to do away with this issue. All agreed it could be deleted, and the micro assignments discussion group agreed to handle it.

The last word on the subject came from ST, when she restated the following from a previous email on the subject and I believe this to be the position that needs to be stated on the ARIN website replacing the existing language which sets the /13 limitation.

“ARIN allocates IP address prefixes based upon need and justification. In general, the minimum allocation size is /20 and those organizations needing allocations smaller than this are strongly encouraged to request address space from their upstream provider. In certain circumstances, ARIN has recognized important exceptions to the minimum allocation policy. Policies related to these exceptions are published on the ARIN website.

ARIN recognizes no maximum allocation limit, but extremely large allocations must meet the same rigorous justifications as all other allocations.”

This would be a new proposal submitted to the list. RJ provided information that currently the policy states that ARIN can allocate resources up to 3 months based on the requirement of an ISP, and that this policy has been in place from the beginning of ARIN. Other RIRs provide 12 or more months, in some cases. Under ARIN’s current policy, some very large ISP’s could run into problems from time to time. Recently, someone also mentioned they may propose a change to the ARIN policy from 3 months to 12 months.

CJW stated that RIPE will allocate for 12 months, that for every subnet assigned you have to get permission. If ARIN gives you 3 months worth, there are no rules but you must justify when you come back for more. She stated there was a big difference between the two. ARIN will get a big block w/no one monitoring it for 12 months. She wanted there to be a fair comparison between the registry’s ways of allocation. BD suggested that a discussion should take place if and when a request to change the policy is sent to ARIN. This clears up a limitation that is arbitrary.

The Chair called for motion to move a proposal forward on the issue of maximum allocation size.

LR moved that the ARIN AC assign an identity number to this issue, and post it to the various lists for formulation of a Policy Proposal to be discussed at the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in October.

BD seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.

14. Committee Report on Management of Key Signing Key

LR stated that an evolving document exists. She asked if the full version should be presented, or if a more clearly defined synopsis on ARIN’s ability to limit liability, and request ARIN staff for an estimate of how it would impact ARIN’s operations, should be sent to the Board. BD felt that it was important to include all caveats so as to have a record that all facets of the issue were considered and discussed.

MK stated he would like to propose all the text to the Board, and have the Board discuss it with legal counsel and validate it. Then the AC can decide if it is something that should be pursued. This was agreed upon.

MK moved that the ARIN AC communicate to the ARIN BOARD the following points before making a decision on this issue:

1. The ARIN Board should request legal opinion(s) regarding how key signing could be accomplished while significantly limiting the liability concerns; and,

2. The ARIN Board should request ARIN staff to provide a rough estimate of the resources that would be needed to provide this function.

BD seconded the motion and added the following friendly amendment:

3. The ARIN Board concur that the ARIN Articles of Incorporation does not preclude ARIN from performing this activity.

MK accepted this friendly amendment. This was seconded by BD.

15. Committee Report on Cable Open Access Policy

CJW stated that she found that meeting someone in the cable industry wanted multiple blocks for ISPs and justified the blocks separately. She stated there is a finite amount of customers and if you have 3 or 4 ISPs you are assigning N number of space to, how much are we going to allow them to oversubscribe at the head end of address space? She felt it was a bad idea due to the fact that you have a lot of address space assigned to a finite number of homes. She stated in APNIC, Korea has this problem and it’s a complicated issue. It was agreed that this needed to be discussed further.

16. Committee Report on Policy Proposal Template

BD stated it is included in the new Policy Process flow chart and he is awaiting ARIN staff to formulate the chart into text. RJ gave a brief update stating that the chart was posted a few weeks ago, comments had been received, and a new chart was being drafted for review. EB had written text behind the flowchart that needs modification to accompany the new chart. RJ stated that it would all be finished by the next day, so that it could be discussed during the ARIN Board meeting on July 21, 2003.

BD clarified that this is a consideration document for people to use as a guide when formulating proposals.

17. Review of Open Action Item List


JAN03-11 RJ, AF

It was suggested that regarding routability testing, the RIRs could announce the space themselves and see if they run into any problems. AF stated that he has set up reachability tests, and could informally provide this information to ARIN to determine what networks would not be able to reach the space.

Update 5/8/03: RJ stated that he has emailed Avi letting him know that the next /8 allocation would likely be a 70/8 and if he was still willing, once ARIN made announcements to the mailing lists regarding the space, they could work together on some routability testing.

Update 7/17/03: AF provided the following information via email:

“I have been checking, and we’ve made some changes to the monitoring system so it’s harder to push a command to all machines (i.e. ping some address).

However, if I can get a shell on a machine on 70/8, I can do the pinging of Akamai boxes in 1100+ networks from ’the other end’ and provide info about ASs that don’t have connectivity to 70/8.

If we need a wider scan, I can use ‘core points’ we use at Akamai as representative routers, and test reachability to those points both from a machine in 70/8 and from a few distributed machines.

As long as we plan for 2 weeks notice and 2 weeks to do the work, that should be fine.”

RJ stated that ARIN requests address space 3 months in advance from IANA, and will incorporate the 4 weeks in for testing. OPEN.

MAY03-12 ARIN Board

Confirm AC’s recommendation to adopt Policy Proposals 2002-5: Amnesty Requests and 2002-6: Aggregation Requests. These items are on the Board’s Agenda for their meeting on July 21, 2003. (Included here as an informational item to the AC).

18. Any Other Business

There was no other business.

19. Adjournment

There being no further discussion, the Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:14 p.m. EDT. BD moved to adjourn and MK seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.


Here in the Vault, information is published in its final form and then not changed or updated. As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.