ARIN XVII Public Policy Meeting Day One Notes - 10 April 2006 [Archived]

Meeting Called to Order

Speaker: Ray Plzak, ARIN President and CEO

Transcript

Ray Plzak opened the meeting and welcomed those in attendance.

Ray began the first day of the ARIN XVII Public Policy Meeting at 9:04 AM EDT by making meeting-related announcements and introducing those present from the ARIN Board of Trustees, the ARIN Advisory Council, and the Number Resource Organization (NRO) Number Council. He also acknowledged those colleagues from the other Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) in attendance and introduced ARIN’s directors. Ray noted this was the first meeting with a Cyber Café, which offers a friendly atmosphere for getting Internet connectivity, contacting the Registration Services and Billing Help Desks, getting information about ARIN, and meeting with other attendees.

He continued with the following announcements:

• Largest second quarter meeting ever with 155 total attendees, including approximately 58 first-time attendees.
• Attendance is comprised of 94 attendees from 21 different U.S. states, 40 attendees from 3 Canadian provinces, and 21 from outside the ARIN region.
• Sunday activities included a well-attended welcoming lunch for first time ARIN attendees where they were able to meet representatives of ARIN’s staff, Board of Trustees, and Advisory Council. A raffle was then held of those who attended the lunch, with Doug Wilson from Microsoft winning a USB HDTV Tuner.
• Winners of the 7th Annual ARIN Foosball Tournament:
  • First Place: Lee Howard and Bob Stratton
  • Second Place: Scott Beuker and Owen DeLong
  • Third Place: Raúl Echeberría and Scott Shackelford
  • Bringing Up the Rear Award: Danielle Gietler and Jordi Palet Martinez
• Thank you for ARIN XVII network connectivity, ARIN social, and Cyber Café sponsor Teleglobe, a VSNL International Company. Teleglobe received assistance in its sponsorship from Bell Canada, Cisco Systems, Dell, and Force 10 Networks. Also, thanks to the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) for its sponsorship of Monday’s lunch.
• Review rules of discussion to be followed throughout the meeting.

Ray reviewed the meeting agenda and the printed materials given to each attendee.

At the beginning of the meeting, approximately 115 people were in attendance.

John Curran, as Chairman of the Board, moderated discussions throughout the day.

[ARIN offered the opportunity for remote participation throughout the meeting. Comments from remote participants were read aloud at the meeting and are integrated into the meeting report.]

Regional Policy Updates

Speaker: Einar Bohlin, ARIN Policy Analyst

Presentation: PDF

Transcript

Einar Bohlin presented a summary of policy developments and discussions in the other RIR regions. Policy issues common among more than one region include:

• IPv4 utilization measurement through HD-ratio
• IPv4 address space for anycast services
• IPv6 blocks from IANA to RIRs (global policy proposal)
• IPv6 HD-ratio to 0.94
• Amend IPv6 assignment and utilization requirements
• 4-Byte AS Numbers

Einar provided specific details about policy developments and discussions within each RIR region in his presentation.

Internet Number Resource Status Report

Speaker: Leslie Nobile, ARIN Director of Registration Services

Presentation: PDF

Transcript

Leslie Nobile presented a joint RIR report on the current status of all IPv4, IPv6, and Autonomous System number resources as of March 31, 2006. This report is updated quarterly by all the RIRs and provides up-to-date statistics on rates of IPv4, IPv6, and AS number consumption.

IETF Activities Report

Speaker: Thomas Narten, IBM Corporation

Presentation: PDF

Transcript

Thomas Narten reported on activities within the IETF relating to IPv6 that have occurred since the last ARIN meeting in October 2005.

Highlights:

• Shim6 - three core docs are nearing completion in a working group and will be advanced together as a unit within IESG in a couple of months. In addition, there was a Shim6 BoF held at the latest NANOG and APRICOT meetings, as well as one planned for the upcoming RIPE meeting. As a result of these BoFs, there has been feedback on a number of issues including end-system complexity, DNS latency, inbound traffic engineering, and IPv6 routing and addressing architectures. These issues, reflecting the concerns of the operator community, are now also being looked at in regards to finding solutions.
• IPv6 Working Group - now in maintenance/wrap-up mode. Three revised RFCs are almost finished: draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis, draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2, and draft-ietf-ipv6-privacy-addrs-v2. Work is continuing on DHC vs. stateless addrconf policy questions.
• v6ops Working Group - A number of documents are either active, with the IESG, or in the RFC editor queue.
• Softwires Working Group - is specifying the standardization of discovery, control and encapsulation methods for connecting IPv4 networks across IPv6 networks and IPv6 networks across IPv4 networks. This WG had an interim meeting prior to the last IETF meeting in Dallas, and is moving along relatively quickly.

There were no questions or comments from the floor.

Policy Proposal 2005-9: 4-byte AS Numbers

Speaker: Geoff Huston, Proposal Author

Introduction: PDF

Presentation: PDF
Transcript

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

• Advisory Council shepherds: Alec Peterson, Mark Kosters
• Introduced on PPML on December 12, 2005, designated as a formal policy on January 26, 2006. This will be the first meeting where this has been discussed. Last revision was on February 3, 2006.
• Presentation of Staff Impact Analysis, Legal Review, Staff Comments, and overview of PPML discussion activity. [see presentation and transcript links above for details]

Geoff Huston, as the proposal author, continued with the presentation of the proposal. He provided an explanation of the goals of the proposal, talked about the reasons for introducing it now, and discussed assumptions that were necessary in the crafting of the proposal, the timeline discussed within the proposal, and talked about what the proposal specifically does not do.

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• A question was raised about the availability of AS numbers two years from now. The speaker responded that based on current usage, it was estimated that approximately 15,000 AS numbers would be available at that time.
• An attendee asked about the timeline mentioned in the proposal and what would happen if some of the assumptions about router vendor readiness turned out to be overly optimistic. The speaker replied that if we do nothing, both the customers (ISPs) and the routing vendors would have a problem, as we would be nearly out of AS numbers. In addition, the initial demand for routers able to handle longer AS numbers will be small, and that this policy would serve as a signal to the vendor community that this will need to be addressed and that there will be a market for it.
• Several questions and comments were made about the nomenclature being confusing and Geoff Huston stated that he would accept the Advisory Council’s assistance in making this clearer.

End of Discussion:

John Curran took a straw poll to determine the consensus of the room. There was consensus to move the policy proposal forward.

X.509 Resource and Routing Certificate Panel

Moderator: John Curran

Speakers: Steve Bellovin, Randy Bush, Geoff Huston, Steve Kent

Transcript

Ray Plzak started by stating the purpose of this panel and introducing the members of the panel. Each of the roundtable participants presented slides. Randy Bush then provided some background information and introduced the first presenter.

Steve Bellovin, Columbia University
“Routing Threats”
Presentation: PDF

Randy Bush, IIJ
“An Operational ISP & RIR PKI”
Presentation: PDF

Geoff Huston, APNIC
“APNIC Trial of Certification of IP Addresses and ASes”
Presentation: PDF

Steve Kent, Information Security
“A PKI for IP Address Space and AS Numbers”
Presentation: PDF

John Curran stated that his purpose in being on this panel was to get feedback from attendees on whether the ARIN Board should direct resources to work in this area.

A discussion period then took place.

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• Agreement by some that ARIN should commit resources to supporting this work.
• Discussion about the feasibility of a central repository, and the possibility of a hierarchy of repositories.
• Possibility of a WHOIS model in terms of the level of distribution of the data and the problems inherent in that as well as a neutrality regarding BGP, SOBGP, PGP, and other methods.
• A desire to, if possible, harmonize key management for DNS security and routing security was expressed.
• Questions raised included what was the potential liability of certificates issued with the CA bit on, why would PKI certification better than what is currently in place, and how should ARIN begin participating or implementing this and what will it take to make it happen. In regard to the last question, John Curran replied that feedback on this issue would be solicited and welcomed at the ARIN Members Meeting on Wednesday.
• Discussion about how this would fit in with the current WHOIS system and the routing registry. Steve Bellovin responded that it would be completely separate from WHOIS, but may or may not be separate from the routing registry.
• The issue of time dependencies in the checking for the allocation of a prefix was raised and how this would impact transfers of resources.

Policy Proposal 2005-8: Proposal to amend ARIN IPv6 assignment and utilisation requirement

Speakers: Thomas Narten and Lea Roberts - Proposal Authors

Introduction: PDF

Presentation: PDF
Transcript

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

• Advisory Council shepherds: Lea Roberts and Bill Darte
• Introduced on PPML on August 29, 2005, designated as a formal policy on September 1, 2005. This was first discussed at ARIN XVI. Last revision was on March 13, 2006.
• Presentation of Staff Impact Analysis, Legal Review, Staff Comments, and overview of PPML discussion activity. [see presentation and transcript links above for details]

Lea Roberts as one of the authors continued with the presentation of the proposal. She provided details on the history of the proposal, the reasons for it, and its intended benefits. She highlighted one of the major questions she wished to be answered today was whether or not there should be a policy-based incentive for ISPs to make reasonable assignments, or some way to disincentivise them making really large assignments.

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• A discussion was held as to what “reasonable” should be taken to mean.
• Concerns raised included that this proposal did not recognize the rapid rate of corporate site growth or new users of IPv6, that this proposal would create a new business model for ISPs to provide larger subnets to residential users than they need, and that if this became a global policy, it would be difficult to gain support from Japan as there would be a concern that this would reduce the benefits of IPv6 over IPv4, namely the simplicity of the network design and lowering costs.
• Some attendees stated that this proposal was an effort to strike a proper balance, not focusing on utilization or addressing efficiency at the expense of everything else.
• A discussion was held about the need for stronger recommendations about how to provide appropriate space. It was stated that without encouragement to ISPs about what the right thing is, there’s nothing stopping ISPs from simply giving out /48s because they can and it’s easier. It was also stated that even if recommendations are ignored, we’ll be no worse off than we are now. Another attendee stated that ISPs should be free to allocate between /48 and /64 without incentives or disincentives to end up at either end of the range. The decision of what is reasonable should be decided by the LIR and the consumer within broad guidelines. We can make tweaks later.

End of Discussion:

John Curran took a straw poll to determine the consensus of the room. There was consensus to move the policy proposal forward.

Policy Proposals 2005-1: Provider-independent IPv6 Assignments for End-Sites and 2006-4: IPv6 Direct PI Assignments for End Sites

Speakers: Owen DeLong and Kevin Loch (2005-1), Andrew Dul (2006-4), Proposal Authors

Introduction: PDF

Presentation: PDF
Transcript

Ray Plzak noted that both of the proposals would be presented in a serial manner, and then there would be a combined discussion of both, due to their similarities. He then presented an introduction to the proposals.

Highlights of the introduction to proposal 2005-1 included:

• Advisory Council shepherds: Lea Roberts and Cathy Aronson
• Introduced on PPML on December 2, 2004, designated as a formal policy on February 15, 2005. This was first discussed at ARIN XV and then again at ARIN XVI. Last revision was on February 10, 2006.
• Presentation of Staff Impact Analysis, Legal Review, Staff Comments, and overview of PPML discussion activity. [see presentation and transcript links above for details]

Highlights of the introduction to proposal 2006-4 included:

• Advisory Council shepherds: Bill Darte and Lea Roberts
• Introduced on PPML on February 10, 2006, designated as a formal policy on February 17, 2006. This was the first meeting where this proposal was discussed. Last revision was on April 3, 2006.
• 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 both proposals. He explained that he and the other authors had been working on finding commonality between their proposals and still maintaining differences to offer greater choice to the community. He then went on to explain why the authors believed that some option of provider-independent IPv6 assignments was necessary.

Andrew Dul, author of proposal 2006-4, then provided additional information, including his reasons for submitting this proposal, the differences that still remain between these proposals, and the importance of moving forward with one of them. He further explained that he and the other policy’s authors would support each other’s proposals provided they have consensus to move forward, and any tweaks can be done in the future.

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• Discussion ensued about the relative merits of each proposal, how additional changes would be handled, and what the primary goals of the proposal were.
• Clarifications about several aspects of both proposals were made in response to questions from attendees.
• Many of the comments made expressed support for 2005-1 mainly due to its simplicity. Those expressing support for 2006-4 preferred the more stringent requirements in that proposal. Of those who were against both proposals, the biggest concerns mentioned included explosive growth in the size of the routing table, a lack of support for aggregation, and the fact that the adoption could mean that a solution to multi-homing in IPv6 would be forestalled.

End of Discussion:

John Curran took a straw poll to determine the consensus of the room on a number of questions. There was consensus to move the policy proposal 2005-1 forward. There was not a clear consensus on moving policy proposal 2006-4 forward. On the question of moving either policy forward, there was consensus. At the request of an attendee, the question of how many attendees represented organizations that are ISPs and are operating in the default free zone was asked, and twenty answered in the affirmative.

Policy Proposal 2006-1: Residential Customer Privacy

Speaker: Sam Weiler, Proposal Author

Introduction: PDF

Presentation:PDF
Transcript

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

• Advisory Council shepherds: Marla Azinger and Paul Andersen
• Introduced on PPML on January 18, 2006, designated as a formal policy on January 26, 2006. This was the first meeting where this proposal was discussed. It has not been revised since being introduced.
• Presentation of Staff Impact Analysis, Legal Review, Staff Comments, and overview of PPML discussion activity. [see presentation and transcript links above for details]

Sam Weiler, as the proposal author, continued with the presentation of the proposal. He explained that his proposal was based on a wish to clarify the residential customer privacy policy, and address issues he saw between the original proposal (2003-3) and how it was being implemented, as well as some issues with policy language originally introduced as policy proposal 2003-5: Distributed Information Server Use Requirements.

Discussion Overview [Transcript]

• Discussion initially focused on the difference between information not being provided to ARIN and not being publicly displayed in WHOIS, and the consequences of the proposal limiting what information was made available to ARIN. Also discussed was the topic of providing information to governmental law enforcement agencies, and what would happen if ARIN was unable to provide the necessary contact information.
• A discussion then occurred focusing on whether to limit the amount of postal code information provided, and how to address this across ARIN’s service region. Some in attendance stated that they opposed this proposal, but would support it if it included a requirement for some subset of the U.S. and Canadian postal code information as appropriate, due to businesses using this information to provide services and the operational community’s needs in ascertaining IP block information.
• ARIN’s counsel made a point of inquiry about how long ISPs maintain information about residential customers. Answers varied among respondents, with several attendees noting a difference between time periods for customers with statically assigned addresses and those who are dynamically assigned. For informational purposes, Counsel noted that the U.S. Congress was considering legislation that would require ISPs to maintain this information for a full year, but that he was unaware of any current statutory requirements in this area.

End of Discussion:

John Curran took a straw poll to determine the consensus of the room. There was no consensus to move the policy proposal forward.

Bogon Filtering for Fun and Profit

Speaker: Dave Dietrich, Team Cymru

Presentation: PDF

Transcript

Dave Dietrich provided a presentation about bogons, bogon filtering and some of the services Team Cymru offers to assist in bogon filtering.

Highlights:

• A “bogon” is a prefix that should never appear in the Internet routing table. There are different types of bogons: “martians” which are private (RFC 1918) and reserved (RFC 3330) addresses space, and “unallocated” which is address space that has not yet been assigned to an RIR by IANA.
• The main reasons to filter bogons is to prevent private address space in your network from leaking out into the Internet and bogons are sometimes used in spam and DDoS.
• Bogon filters regularly need to be updated, as unallocated space eventually gets allocated. For best results, you should use an automated method to keep your bogon filters up-to-date.
• The Bogon Route Server Project advertises bogon prefixes via eBGP and peers configure routers to automatically filter bogons based on prefixes received. The BGP advertisements are updated as netblocks become bogon/non-bogon.

There were no questions or comments from the floor.

Open Microphone

Moderator: John Curran, ARIN Chairman of the Board

Transcript

• An attendee asked if ARIN has ever considered surveying the membership about their job titles, what parts of their organization they work in, and what roles they fill. Upon consulting with ARIN staff, John Curran replied that no, such a survey has not been conducted. Further discussion ensued as to what the reasons and goals of such a survey would be. John responded that this would be discussed by the staff and the Board.

Closing Announcements and Meeting Adjournment

Speaker: Ray Plzak, ARIN President and CEO

Transcript

Ray Plzak reminded attendees of the hours that the ARIN RSD and Billing Help Desks and Cyber Café were open. He encouraged all attendees to complete the meeting survey available on ARIN’s website. He reminded the audience about the ARIN social that evening, and that day 2 of the ARIN Public Policy Meeting would begin at 9:00 AM EDT. Ray concluded by thanking network connectivity, ARIN social, and Cyber Café sponsor Teleglobe, a VSNL International Company. Teleglobe received assistance in its sponsorship from Bell Canada, Cisco Systems, Dell, and Force 10 Networks. Also, thanks to the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) for its sponsorship of Monday’s lunch.

Day 1 of the ARIN Public Policy Meeting was adjourned at 4:56 PM EDT.

Sponsors