Hi Bill,
Sorry for not answering in order.
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Bill Darte wrote:
Hi John,
Couple of questions..... could the solution for staff effort be solved more
directly by modifying the protocol that establishes team
testing for each and every request through exhaustion? I wonder about the need
for these extraordinary measures.
Possibly. But the new (1/2013) PDP seems to channel us rather straitly at
this point. The author still owns the proposal here and the shepherds (AD
and I) have what appears to be criteria met for moving to advance to DP.
AD has made some observations of late that seem to suggest a rewrite based
on some concerns I haven't assimilated yet. As for extraordinary, and at
the risk of another nautical metaphor, a rising tide lifts all boats.
Is /16 small? Did you consider a different boundary....say, /20?
The author is willing to discuss this number, others suggest similar.
How much of a record do we have for transfer requests yet?
This will go on the list of subjects for discussing this as DP assuming it
gets there. These subjects do not appear to be precluded from discussion
at this point so much as preparatory. As shepherd, I am focused on clear
problem statement and in scope. Andrew is his usual incisive self. The
author appears (mirabile dictu, and most welcome), to be willing to adapt
to the process. We have time for the work. (I wonder if every other phrase
should be IMO?)
Until exhaustion we don't know what the run rate will be or the average
size block request. Though I believe the that those metrics should
mimic pre-exhaustion as I see nothing magic affecting network build out
and business demands in the pre-post time frames.
Thankfully, not a question. :) I do see the math as being important, but I
think we are are bordering on the time when appeals to math mimic Zeno's
Paradox. I know that is not what you are doing, but I feel that continued
call for math analysis of the decreasing pool or past behavior will be of
increasingly limited utility. Particularly if the community also rises
supporting sweeping changes.
All of this my own opinion and not applicable to anything from God on
down.
So, I neither support, nor oppose this proposal but hope to inform the
discussion through my questions.
I am very glad to have this volume of response for this proposal. I hope
you will assist in its processing, as always.
John Springer
bd
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:35 AM, John Springer <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi All,
The following timely policy proposal is presented for your consideration,
discussion and comment. Will you please comment?
As always, expressions of support or opposition (and their reasons) are
given slightly more weight than reasons why you
might be in neither condition.
John Springer
ARIN-prop-204 Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers
Date: 16 April 2014
Problem Statement:
ARIN staff, faced with a surge in near-exhaust allocations and subsequent
transfer requests and a requirement for team
review of these, is spending scarce staff time on needs testing of small
transfers. This proposal seeks to decrease overall
ARIN processing time through elimination of that needs test.
Policy statement:
Change the language in NRPM 8.3 after Conditions on the recipient of the
transfer: from "The recipient must demonstrate the
need for up to a 24-month supply of IP address resources under current ARIN
policies and sign an RSA." to "For transfers
larger than a /16 equivalent, the recipient must demonstrate the need for
up to a 24-month supply of IP address resources
under current ARIN policies and sign an RSA."
Change the language in the third bullet point in NRPM 8.4 after
Conditions on the recipient of the transfer: from
"Recipients within the ARIN region must demonstrate the need for up to a 24-month
supply of IPv4 address space." to "For
transfers larger than a /16 equivalent, recipients in the ARIN region
must demonstrate the need for up to a 24-month supply
of IP address resources under current ARIN policies and sign an RSA."
Comments:
Needs testing has been maintained for transfers largely because the
community wishes to ensure protection against hoarding
and speculation in the IPv4 market. This proposal seeks a middle ground
between the elimination of needs tests for transfers
altogether, and the continuance of needs tests for every transfer. This
should help ARIN staff to reduce transfer processing
time, since most transfers have been smaller than /16.
Timetable for implementation: Immediate
_______________________________________________
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.
