Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 17 July 2021 [Archived]

via Teleconference

Attendees:

• Leif Sawyer, Chair (LS)
• Andrew Dul (AD)
• Gary Giesen (GG)
• Kat Hunter, Vice Chair (KH)
• Amy Potter (AP)
• Joe Provo (JP)
• Alyssa Quinn (AQ)
• Kerrie Richards (KR)
• Rob Seastrom (RS)
• hris Tacit (CT)
• Alicia Trotman (AT)
• Matthew Wilder (MW)
• Alison Wood (AW)

ARIN Staff:

• Michael Abejuela, (MA) General Counsel
• Richard Jimmerson, (COO) Chief Operating Officer
• John Curran, President & CEO
• Sean Hopkins, (SH) Senior Policy Analyst
• Lisa Liedel, (LL) Director, Registration Services
• Therese Simcox, Sr. Executive Assistant, Scribe

Regrets:

• Anita Nikolich

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. ET. The presence of a quorum was noted. He acknowledged regrets from AN.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair reviewed the agenda with the Council and called for any comments. There were no comments.

3. Approval of the Minutes

(Exhibit A)

It was moved by CT, and seconded by JP, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 17 June 2021, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

4. Draft Policy ARIN-2020-6: Allowance for IPv4 Allocation “Swap” Transactions via 8.3 Specified Transfers and 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfers

RS stated that there was no update at this time as no discussion has taken place on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML). He stated that he will try to foster discussion.

5. Draft Policy ARIN-2021-2: Special Use IPv4 Space Out of Scope for Purposes of Determining Waitlist Eligibility

MW stated that he and KR discussed that they would like to have this policy presented at ARIN 48, and he will post it to the PPML for discussion to see if they can gain support. Subsequently, they will request a staff and legal review in advance of ARIN 48.

6. Editorial Change ARIN-edit-2020-9: Editorial Clean-up of NRPM Section 4 and Related Provisions

AW stated that the only two parts for editing are proposed as an editorial change on Sections 8.3 and 8.4. She noted that other changes have already been resolved with other policies that have been moved forward. She asked if a staff and legal review is needed. SH explained that if the change is significant, then both a community review and a staff and legal review will be needed. AW asked if she needed to resubmit the changes to the PPML for feedback. SH replied that a new community review session would need to begin via a new motion. He suggested to AW that she could propose a motion to start a new community review period, and then make edits within the next three days, which is when the period would be announced to the community.

It was moved by AW and seconded by RS, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council proposes edits to NRPM Sections 8.3 and 8.4.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with all in favor via roll call vote.

7. Editorial Change ARIN-edit-2021-1: ASN Clarifications to Sections 2 and 8

GG stated there were not updates at this time. The policy shepherds were unable to meet since the last AC meeting to act upon next steps. He stated that the intention is to split the current proposal in two. The editorial portions will be submitted as a new editorial change proposal in August at the AC’s next meeting. The non-editorial changes will be submitted as a draft policy with a new staff and legal review to be conducted.

8. ARIN-Prop-298: Private AS Number and Unique Routing Policy Clarifications

CT stated that policy shepherds determined that the proposal is within scope and that the problem statement is clear. He stated that they intend to discuss with the authors the problems with the coupling of resource needs to “use on the public Internet.” However, the proposal meets the requirements for moving forward.

It was moved by CT, and seconded by JP, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-298: Private AS Number and Unique Routing Policy Clarifications’ as a Draft Policy.”

The motion carried with all in favor, via roll call vote.

RS stated that he is concerned about the level of overarching guidance given in the proposal and had counter explanations for appropriate use of private or public AS numbers. He pointed out that with the 32-bit ASN conservation mandate, it is over the same number of addresses as IPv4 address space, but only one is needed per organization. There is no spillage due to subnetting. How much effort must an organization make in getting a public address? He suggested that if anyone believes there is any reason, technically or otherwise, to include to public Internet or internet per organization, they should obtain a unique AS number. There is no conservation method here.

JP stated that he did not disagree with RS, and that is one of the points - that the language may be too strong. JP noted that he and CT intend to discuss this with the authors to clarify which elements are called out, and other language that may be better stated.

RS noted that he himself was making all observations using a private AS to announce things to the public Internet.

CT asked if staff has a perspective on what the authors’ intent is in terms of solving this issue, since the proposal originated from the Policy Experience Report (PER).

LL replied that customers do not know how multi-homed versus unique routing policy applies to them, and staff has had long conversations with them on which is best for each customer - which was what started the PER. Now, if they are turning up a network or are multi-homed or have a unique AS number from their peers, they can request an AS number instead of waiting to become multi-homed. It is a way to reword it for them for their better understanding.

RS asked if it was fair to say the overarching concern is to stop confusing customers in terms of the outcome of ASNs. LL stated that was correct.

MW suggested a need for another class of document apart from the NRPM, like a Best Current Practices (BCP) document, to help customers and provide guidance on implementation possibilities. The Chair thought it a good idea. RS pointed out it was more NANOG’s purview than ARIN’s. The Chair suggested pointing customers to that and RS agreed.

9. ARIN AC Working Groups

• NRPM Working Group. JP stated that an update to NRPM definitions has been drafted and is currently under discussion. The WG is working on separating the editorial and non-editorial proposals. There has not been any progress on the Section 6 update nor Section 12 cleanup. There are 5 identified workstreams being held until after the submitted policy proposals reach their respective conclusions. JP announced and welcomed volunteers RS and MW to the WG to help carry the workload and he thanked them for their support.

• PDP Working Group. AP stated that they recently had a meeting and have internal questions regarding how they approach some items. Once that is done, the work will be split up and put into a change log for the community and they will also track changes. The WG’s next meeting is the week after next to follow up. She noted that by the AC’s next meeting, they will be closer to having language to present to the community.

• Policy Experience Report (PER) Working Group. AW stated that the WG is caught up and awaiting the PER.

10. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.

• Policy Status Updates. The Chair reminded the AC policy shepherds to have status updates submitted to the AC Vice Chair before close of business on the Wednesday prior to the AC’s monthly meeting.

• ARIN Election Nominations Reminder. The Chair reminded the AC that the nomination period is still open. If an AC member has not accepted or declined a nomination, they must do so before tomorrow. He stated if any member has concerns about being on the Council, to please reach out to him. The COO stated that there are questionnaires to be completed if an AC member is going to run for the Council, and they must be completed before the deadline – close of business Friday, 16 July 2021.

• ARIN 48 Virtual Mentorships. The Chair stated that staff is looking for volunteers and to please send an email to staff if interested in being a Mentor.

• Changes in AC Member Affiliation or Employment. There were no changes reported.

11. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:30 p.m. ET. MW moved to adjourn, seconded by AD. The meeting adjourned with no objections.