Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles (John Curran)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 15:54:03 +0000
From: John Curran <[email protected]>
To: Jason Schiller <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected] List" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On May 31, 2013, at 10:21 AM, Jason Schiller
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
To that end, would it be unreasonable to ask for something different in the
staff assessment?
Certainly a standard staff assessment should be done, but could staff also
publish
a separate assessment, of each of the snippets of the draft policy that would
impact ARIN operations, how it would impact ARIN operations, and if there are
other
events (text) that have superseded this text.
The community will then have:
1. the original principle
2. the history about the departure
3. the now current policy
4. how that might be changed if we reassert the principle in RFC 2050
The community can the first decide if the current policy / ARIN practice should
remain
Assuming it should remain, the community should judge if this is:
A: Consistant with the original principle - should have no ARIN policy impact
B: The original principle is still true, but need to be modified to support
current policy
C: Inconsistent with the original principle, but the original principle still
holds true,
current NRPM text should change, but resulting ARIN policy should be the
same
D: Inconsistent with the original principle, but the original principle still
holds true,
current ARIN policy should change
E: Inconsistent with the original principle, but the original principle still
holds true,
current ARIN policy is an artifact of other events but should not change
F: Inconsistent with the original principle, and the community has concluded
that it
should depart from this original principle, as it is no longer valid.
For example wrt the text:
"IP addresses are valid as long as the criteria continues to be met"
the community may decide that:
- Yes this is a general principle that is still true
- No we don't think it should mean ARIN should start reclaiming legacy space
that is under 80% utilized.
- No we don't think this should challenge the current RSA
- Yes we need some clarifying text asserting this
Conclusion ARIN AC (working with the community should work on text asserting
this)
For example wrt 0.1.1 text:
"Assignment of Internet number resources is based on documented operational
need.
Utilization rate of address space will be a key factor in number resource
assignment.
To this end, registrants should have documented justified need available for
each assignment.
Organizations will be assigned resources based on immediate utilization plus
expected utilization."
The community might decide that:
- Yes this is a general principle that is still true, IPs should be given on a
needs basis
- No we don't think ARIN should start giving out less IPv6 addresses, or make
it harder to get
- Yes this does conflict with IPv6 allocation / assignment policy which is
currently not based on need
- The conflicting IPv6 allocation / assignment policy should still be used by
ARIN
- The community concludes IPv6 allocation / assignment policy should have
always be based on need
- The community should work to modify the NRPM to
1. Make IPv6 allocation / assignment policy based on need
2. point out the balance between aggregation and efficient utilization much
more favors the former
3. ensure the needs based policy still results in the same allocation /
assignment size
If we proceed in this fashion, we can identify
- the non-controversial (non-ARIN policy changing) text,
- the community can deal with each piece of text that might change ARIN policy,
and decide at a high
level to what extent the particular policy should impact ARIN policy
- decide what sort of changes is needed to what (this draft, other NRPM text,
RSA, ARIN policy, etc)
- begin crafting those changes
My apologies to staff for the added work, but if done well, this will truly be
something to be proud of.
Jason -
We work for you (the collective "you" being the entire community) and as such
are happy to do any additional work which will help the community in
consideration
of draft policies. We normally would note any conflicts with existing
practices
during staff and legal review (once requested by the AC) if it is not clear
from
the policy text that the intent is to change those practices as well at
adoption.
I will note that performing this sort of assessment may identify some clearly
impacting aspects of the proposed text with existing registry practices, but
not
as many as you might expect, as the inherent conflict between the various
proposed principles means that they can only be considered as a whole and
not "snippet by snippet" as you suggest.
Your example is a perfect illustration of this, in that you suggest that we
might cite
the existing IPv6 allocation/assignment policy as impacted by proposed
principle
"0.1.1. Documented Justified Need", but that is not possible because the
policy is
set by the community is based on the balance between justified need and the
need
for aggregation (i.e. proposed principle "0.2. Hierarchical Aggregation")...
To the
extent that the balance is not optimum, that is ultimately for the community
to
decide that and not the ARIN staff.
Phrases in the proposed principles such as "Internet number resources are
valid as
long as the criteria continues to be met", "All Internet number resource
requests are
subject to audit and verification by any means deemed appropriate by the
regional
registry", and "The party trying to obtain the resources must meet the same
criteria
as if they were requesting resources directly from the IR" (among others)
will indeed
be highlighted in any staff and legal review due to conflicts with existing
ARIN registry
operational practices, but it is up to the community to decide if, and to
what extent,
existing policy does not align with balance inherent to these proposed
principles.
FYI,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130531/45b66295/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 95, Issue 20
*****************************************
