[170197] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: arin representation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Mar 24 22:30:08 2014
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFy81rmeCo62ijXopF64s-We8BJin2H2h2N6=AVnexJWqtMyLA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 19:12:30 -0700
To: Timothy Morizot <tmorizot@gmail.com>
Cc: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>,
North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Yes and no=85 Everyone who receives a direct allocation is a member.
Those who receive direct assignments from ARIN, OTOH, are not members =
unless
they choose to also pay an additional $500/year for that membership.
Owen
On Mar 23, 2014, at 9:53 PM, Timothy Morizot <tmorizot@gmail.com> wrote:
> Unless I misremember, everyone who receives a direct allocation from =
ARIN
> and signs an RSA is automatically a member. It's not clear to me what
> "owner of a /24 network" means in that context. (I don't recall if =
signing
> an LRSA in and of itself also makes one a member, since by the time we =
had
> signed an LRSA, we had long since received our direct IPv6 allocation =
under
> an RSA.)
>=20
> But perhaps Randy is looking for the number of /24 equivalents =
allocated to
> legacy resource holders who haven't also received an IPv6 direct =
allocation
> or other IPv4 direct allocation under an RSA?
>=20
> Scott
>=20
>=20
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Naslund, Steve =
<SNaslund@medline.com>wrote:
>=20
>> Exactly right John. I think the term "owned" is a problem here.
>>=20
>> It seems to me that the terms would correctly be "holder" or who the
>> address space was issued to or "user" being the end user using that =
space.
>>=20
>> Wouldn't all of the holders be ARIN members unless grandfathered in?
>>=20
>> Steven Naslund
>> Chicago IL
>>=20
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran@arin.net]
>> Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 10:36 PM
>> To: Randy Bush
>> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
>> Subject: Re: arin representation
>>=20
>> On Mar 23, 2014, at 6:53 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>> two questions:
>>>=20
>>> o of the /24s in the arin region, what percentage are owned by arin
>>> members?
>>=20
>> Randy -
>>=20
>> Happy to generate these - two questions for clarity.
>>=20
>> 1) Should we expand /16's and /8's into the corresponding number of =
/24's ?
>> (or do you only want those blocks issued originally as /24's to be
>> counted)
>>=20
>> 2) In terms of categories, we could go strictly with /24's held by =
ARIN
>> members
>> versus /24's held by non-members (and resulting percentages); note
>> that would
>> be predominantly ISPs since end-users assignments from ARIN are
>> unlikely to be
>> members unless they specifically opted to join. Alternatively, we
>> could provide
>> counts /24's under RSA, /24's under LRSA, and /24's
>> legacy-no-agreement as the
>> three categories of counts desired (and each percentage of the =
total)
>>=20
>> So, based on above, would you prefer the /24 space statistics as =
asked
>> (member/non-member) or rsa/lrsa/legacy-no-agreement?
>>=20
>>> o of the address holders in the arin region, what percentage are =
arin
>>> members?
>>=20
>> Will do.
>>=20
>> Thanks!
>> /John
>>=20
>> John Curran
>> President and CEO
>> ARIN
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
