Aronson, Cathy

Candidate Speech

Photo of Cathy Aronson
Organization: Daydream Imagery LLC
cja@daydream.com

Jump to statements of support

Candidate Questionnaire

Provide a brief biography of recent experience, associations, and affiliations relevant to serving on the Advisory Council.

I have been doing routing and addressing since 1988 when I worked on the NSFNet network. I worked to deploy Classless InterDomain Routing (CIDR) when we were running out of class B blocks and exploding the routing table because of not being able to aggregate blocks of class Cs.

At @Home network, one of the very first to do internet over cable, my group was responsible for all the routing and addressing. While at @Home I negotiated the policy for cable providers to get blocks of IPv4 address space from ARIN and that policy is still in use today. I have been on the ARIN Advisory Council since 1998 and have actively served the community in that role. More recently I worked at Cascadeo Corporation doing network engineering and network management for a number of clients. In this role I worked with enterprises and became familiar with the needs of those businesses.

Describe the relevance of your experience to the Advisory Council.

I have been on the Advisory Council almost since the beginning. I know why things are the way they are because I was there. I believe that this institutional knowledge is important as we try to make policy for IPv6 and work our way through exhaustion of IPv4. I also served a term on the first ASO Address Council and worked with other regions on the globally coordinated IPv6 policy. I have been a customer of ARIN as well as RIPE and APNIC so I have experienced the policies first hand. All of this work is directly related to the work of the advisory council and the ARIN community.

What Internet-related services do you or your organization provide?

Prior to April 2013 I was working for a company who provided NOC and engineering services for a number of enterprises. We also managed a nation-wide backbone for another client. This afforded me the ability to become more familiar with the needs of enterprise customers.

What conflicts, real or perceived, might arise should you be elected to the AC?

I have no conflicts.

The AC meets every year on a Friday in January, in Reston, VA for a workshop to review AC practices and policies. Can you commit to attending in person, and does that pose any conflict or concern?

I can commit to this as long as it’s not on one particular weekend in January. As far as I know the meeting is no longer during that time.

Describe any limitations on your ability to attend AC and Public Policy Meetings in person or to serve the entirety of a 3-year term.

I have no limitations. As far as I know I will be able to attend the meetings and complete my entire 3-year term.

What differentiates you as a candidate, or makes you uniquely suitable to the post?

I believe I am different because I have been in the industry for a long time. I have gotten address space from ARIN, RIPE and APNIC. Before I was on the AC I was already active in those communities. I have also been active in IETF and NANOG. I know the issues this community faces.

How do you foresee ARIN’s function, scale, or role changing in the future?

ARIN’s function and scale will change as we transition to IPv6. In theory organizations won’t be coming back to the registry as often to get IP addresses. I do feel that there is a huge role for ARIN in IPv6 policy though. There are so many unforseen obstacles with an address space so large. We are starting to see that with drafts being written by organizations deploying IPv6. I think there are a lot of things that we haven’t thought enough about. Things like maybe it really matters if we assign thousands of addresses for a point-to-point link. As a community we have to look at these issues and make solid policies and recommendations to help.

What is your opinion of the principles outlined in RFCs 2050 and 2050bis?

RFC 2050 is the bedrock that the registry system is based upon. I believe that it has served us well and that we need to carry those principles forward into the future. I do feel that RFC2050bis is also required because the landscape has changed since 2050 was written. I am co-shepherd of a draft that tries to add back some things that are not in 2050bis. Specifically the concepts of stewardship and conservation. I am not entirely sure if the new proposal will gain consensus but it’s an excellent discussion for our community to have.

What areas of policy, if any, need more attention and why?

I believe that we are going to be faced with a stream of IPv4 policies dealing with the end of IPv4. I feel that some of the policies are going to have to change for the transfer market and we are seeing that already. Some policies don’t make sense post-depletion. An example is making small ISPs return blocks to get bigger ones. This makes no sense in an IPv4 market and so we had to change it. I believe there will be more of that sort of policy change. Further I believe that IPv6 policy will need enhancement as we get more experience with IPv6 and the issues with such a large address space. IPv6 is not infinite and so we have to practice stewardship and make reasonable policies.

How do you separate your personal opinions from those of your organization and those of the community?

It is always a balance separating personal opinions from those of the community and my employer. I listen to the community and have always worked hard to help gain consensus and move forward policies that community wants and needs. I believe if you look at my record on the AC you will see that I work hard for the community and often vote for policies based solely on community need, community consensus, and technical soundness.

 

Statements of Support

A forum for statements of support for this candidate is provided below via comments. Submit a comment to make your own statement of support for this candidate or simply view what others have posted. Submissions will be moderated before posting.