FYI, Proposal 191, was just advanced as Draft Policy ARIN-2013-8
"Subsequent Allocations for Additional Discrete Network Sites"
On 11/25/13, 17:45 , David Huberman wrote:
Which one is 191, please?
David R Huberman
Microsoft Corporation
Senior IT/OPS Program Manager (GFS)
________________________________________
From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 3:40:05 PM
To: David Huberman
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Bootstrapping new entrants after IPv4 exhaustion
I actually like and could support this.
(Though I don’t think it’s a panacea for the ISP vs. end-user debate in its
entirety, from a policy perspective, I’m fine with the policy as expressed.)
The one caveat is that I wouldn’t want to see this implemented in such a way
that it would potentially interfere with what is currently known as proposal
191 if that achieves consensus (which I think is likely).
Owen
On Nov 25, 2013, at 12:45 PM, David Huberman <[email protected]>
wrote:
Scott wrote:
I'm not sure it's all that helpful to ask me to re-justify the entire NRPM.
That requirement, in a more strict form, is what is present in the NRPM today.
But we can't make policy for policy's sake. ARIN exists to, in part, provide
number resources to the operator community who needs them. Section 4 of the
NRPPM serves the needs of the network operator community circa 1996, not 2014
and beyond. So how about:
4.2.0:
An ISP can obtain an initial allocation of a /24 or larger by demonstrating a
need to use at least 25% of the space within 90 days, and at least 50% of the
space within one year.
4.2.1
An ISP can obtain an additional allocations by demonstrating 80% or better
utilization of existing address space. The additional allocation block size
determination uses the criterion in 4.2.0
4.3.0
An end-user can obtain an initial assignment of a /24 or larger by
demonstrating a need to use at least 25% of the space within 90 days, and at
least 50% of the space within one year.
4.3.1
An end-user can obtain an additional assignment by demonstrating 80% or better
utilization of existing address space. The additional assignment block size
determination uses the criterion in 4.3.0
Throw in a section on SWIP, keep 4.5 MDN as-is, and presto, you're done with
section 4, and you've fixed NRPM 8.3 and you've harmonized the very broken ISP
v End-user mechanic.
Doesn't this serve the network operator community in 2014 better than making
small changes to walls and walls of text from 1996?
David R Huberman
Microsoft Corporation
Senior IT/OPS Program Manager (GFS)
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
--
================================================
David Farmer Email: [email protected]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
