I don't believe I saw anywhere that these attestations were being made under penalty of perjury or any other method of civil punishment. Do they have to notarized? What are the real benefits here, other then putting more people to work at ARIN and increase the workload of those who really do need new IP space. Shane Ronan On Apr 20, 2009, at 7:04 PM, David Andersen wrote:

"Are you asking me to attest, publicly and perhaps legally, that this information is correct?

I think this needlessly involves people who probably don't have a clue in an area we may not really want them involved in. I can hear the conversation now: Officer: "Why do I have to sign this thing?" Tech: "Well your graciousness. We are coming to the end of the available address space and the gods at ARIN want to make you aware of that so you might approve that request I made for new equipment to deploy IPv6 with." Officer: "Huh? Do we need it?" Tech: "Yes, we need the address space." Officer: "And they're running out?" Tech: "Well out of the v4 space which is what we use now but we can move to v6 space and..." Officer: "Hell, request 10x as much space! I'll sign anything as long as we don't run out and have to spend money!" For me, I request all the allocations and I'm also an officer of the company so I'll just attest to my own stuff but I can see this would be a nightmare in a larger company. There was also an e-mail about outreach to the CEOs of all the companies with resources. At my company the CEO will hand it to me without even opening it. I assume that in many larger companies it "might" get glanced at by the CEO or CEOs secretary before it gets shredded. While I completely understand the reasons behind both initiatives I don't think they'll have the desired effect. Aaron -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Moyle-Croft [mailto:mmc@internode.com.au] Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 9:56 PM To: Joe Greco Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests ARIN should ask companies to demonstrate: - demonstration of routing of an IPv6 range/using IPv6 address space - demonstration of services being offered over IPv6 - a plan to migrate customers to IPv6 - automatic allocation of IPv6 range instead of IPv4 for those who can't do so. ie. No more IPv4 for you until you've shown IPv6 clue. Then people can't just get away with driving into the brick wall of IPv4-allocation fail. (Not sure if I'm serious about this suggestion, but it's there now). MMC On 21/04/2009, at 9:09 AM, Joe Greco wrote:

Let me see if I can understand this.

We're running out of IPv4 space.

Knowing that blatant lying about IP space justifications has been an ongoing game in the community, ARIN has decided to "do something" about it.

So now they're going to require an attestation. Which means that they are going to require an "officer" to "attest" to the validity of the information.

So the "officer," most likely not being a technical person, is going to contact ... probably the same people who made the request, ask them if they need the space. Right?

And why would the answer be any different, now?

... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e- mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.

-- Matthew Moyle-Croft Networks, Internode/Agile Level 5, 162 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia Email: mmc@internode.com.au Web: http://www.on.net Direct: +61-8-8228-2909 Mobile: +61-419-900-366 Reception: +61-8-8228-2999 Fax: +61-8-8235-6909

Oddly enough, someone proposed something very much along these lines at a couple of RIR meetings (see "IPv4 Soft Landing"), and in fact used the 'driving into a brick wall' analogy. Many of the folks who commented on that policy proposal felt it was inappropriate for RIRs to dictate business models (that is, if an ISP doesn't want to move to IPv6, it wouldn't be 'right' for an RIR to force them to). The proposer eventually gave up as the impedance mismatch between reality and the RIR policy making process became too great to observe without breaking into uncontrollable giggles.

A more interesting experiment: We want uptake of IPv6, right? Allocating even fairly large swaths of IPv6 to those who didn't really need it would be less harmful than hoarding IPv4, right? How about actually providing an incentive to return IPv4 space? How about actually providing an incentive to provide IPv6 services along the way? For example, here, we're not currently doing production IPv6, because we're not likely to be able to justify the cost of acquiring space from ARIN. Our legacy IPv4 resources cost us nothing, both what we advertise and what we don't. If there was a way for us to trade in some swamp for IPv6, we might be tempted to do that, which would encourage IPv6 a little more. It would have to be on the same or similar terms as what we currently enjoy, otherwise, it makes more sense just to retain the IPv4. Further, there may be organizations that could be tempted into returning paid ARIN allocations, perhaps by offering them a guaranteed low rate (free, ideally) for IPv6 space in exchange for significant chunks of IPv4 returned. Now, really, would this be successful? Who knows. But I do know that it wouldn't be costly in any meaningful way. If the RIRs get any returned IPv4 space and hand out some free IPv6 space, "we" (the whole Internet) win on both fronts. Maybe the RIR isn't making oodles of money from registration services for that space, but then again, I've never been convinced that the pay-for-addresses model is a good idea in the greater picture. At some point, it would make sense to evaluate the question of how much IPv4 space is being sat on because of the costs of registering IPv6, etc. Of course, this is the opposite problem: we're now talking about dictating RIR business models. :-) ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.

There's a big difference between signing that the books are right (it matters!) and filling out paperwork for ARIN. The first is one of his primary duties as an officer of the company, the second won't even make his secretary's "to do" list. It appears that ARIN wants to raise the IP addressing space issue to the CxO level -- if it was interested in honesty, ARIN would have required a notarized statement by the person submitting the request. If ARIN really wants to get the interest of CEOs, raise the price! Frank -----Original Message----- From: Jo Rhett [mailto:jrhett@netconsonance.com] Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 11:25 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests On Apr 20, 2009, at 4:39 PM, Joe Greco wrote:

So the "officer," most likely not being a technical person, is going to contact ... probably the same people who made the request, ask them if they need the space. Right?

And why would the answer be any different, now?

This is exactly identical to having the CEO signed the quarterly statements. You are saying this is Right. The CEO couldn't do that accounting him/herself -- but they're going to ask more questions and be more cautious before putting their name on it. I applaud this idea. I wish we had done it 10 years ago, but it's not too late to start. Before late than never. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness

On Apr 21, 2009, at 3:49 AM, Frank Bulk - iName.com wrote:

There's a big difference between signing that the books are right (it matters!) and filling out paperwork for ARIN. The first is one of his primary duties as an officer of the company, the second won't even make his secretary's "to do" list.

It appears that ARIN wants to raise the IP addressing space issue to the CxO level -- if it was interested in honesty, ARIN would have required a notarized statement by the person submitting the request.

No. Those are two entirely different problems. A notary signs only that the person in front of them has been checked to be who they say they are. That's authentication. A Notary cannot attest that what is on the document is valid. A CxO signing that the request is valid is Authorization to speak for the company. Different spectrum. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness

On Apr 21, 2009, at 6:03 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:

If the effort that will go into administering this went instead into reclaiming IPv4 space that's obviously hijacked and/or being used by abusive operations, we'd all benefit.

Report such cases to ARIN: <https://www.arin.net/resources/fraud/> Thanks! /John John Curran Acting CEO ARIN

Net-Admin: This IPv6 stuff is important, we should already be deploying it full-tilt. Manager: Some IPv6 testing should be reflected in next years budget.

Director: I hear IPv6 is the future, but customers just aren't demanding it. VP Network: Humm, maybe I should have read the Network World article on IPv6 rather than the one on Google World Dominance.

...you forgot the rest of the conversation: VP Network: Why doesn't www.google.com return one of these v6 addresses? Director: Yeah, did do a limited v6 deployment last year, why doesn't i work? Net-Admin: We aren't one of the networks that have been individually vetted by Google to return an AAAA to without complications. Director: So even with all their scale, influence and technology resources, they still won't do it by default? VP Network: Sounds like we can hold back on that budget for another year.