Interesting estimate. The policy text contains a total of 9 NRPM sections which are modified. I suppose if you want to contemplate each single deletion and insertion as a separate text change, then there are, in fact, exactly 30 total changes, but most of them were, in fact, part of the original proposal.
If you don't count changing a word or phrase as 2 changes (a deletion + an insertion), but count it as 1 modification, then there are only 17 changes to the NRPM text contemplated. You are certainly free to comment at any time you wish, however, if you want modification to the policy prior to it becoming a recommended draft, it would be preferable for you to get those comments in prior to the AC conference call on May 15th. Owen On May 5, 2014, at 19:08 , Martin Hannigan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Estimated thirty changes to text. It appears that the AC just couldn't resist > modifying what we all agreed on en masse. > > It'll take some time to evaluate all thirty plus changes. I'll reserve my > comments for the NANOG PPC in Bellevue. > > Best, > > -M< > > > > > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > In short, because as specified, the changes ended up with the NRPM being > somewhat nonsensical. > > This revision does not change any of the original inent, preserves most of > the original text of the proposal, and leaves the NRPM in tact with legible > text after making the changes. > > Do you have a problem with some specific aspect of the new version? If so, > please enumerate it so we can address your concern. > > Owen > > On May 5, 2014, at 18:50 , Martin Hannigan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> Why couldn't the AC simply implement the changes that were massively agreed >> upon here, as is -- which was also part of the discussion? >> >> >> Best, >> >> -M< >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:44 PM, Kevin Blumberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm sending out a revised version of prop-208. Included is an attachment >> with a redline version to assist. >> >> I would appreciate any feedback of support or questions. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Kevin Blumberg >> >> ARIN-prop-208 Reduce All Minimum Allocation/Assignment Units to /24 >> Proposal Originator: Owen DeLong >> Date: 5 May 2014 >> Problem Statement: >> As we approach runout, more and more end users and smaller ISPs will be >> unable to obtain space from their upstreams and will be seeking space from >> ARIN. In order to meet these needs to the extent possible and to make policy >> more fair to a broader range of the ARIN constituency, we should reduce the >> minimum assignment and allocation units for IPv4 to /24 across the board. >> >> Policy statement: >> >> Remove all references to minimum allocations /20 and /22 replacing them with >> the term allocation or with /24 when referencing minimum size blocks. >> >> Change the title of 4.2.2.1 to "ISP Requirements" with revised text stating: >> >> All ISP organizations must satisfy the following requirements...thus >> eliminating the entire Multi-homed section and subsections along with other >> superfluous example text. >> >> Delete the special case allocations/assignments for the Caribbean as the new >> /24 minimums are an improvement. >> >> Comments: >> a. Timetable for implementation: Immediate b. A red line version has been >> included >> >> Full text version of changes for easy reference: >> >> 4.2.1.5. Minimum allocation >> In general, ARIN allocates /24 and larger IP address prefixes to ISPs. If >> allocations smaller than /24 are needed, ISPs should request address space >> from their upstream provider. >> >> 4.2.2.1 ISP Requirements >> All ISP organizations must satisfy the following requirements: >> >> 4.2.2.1.1 Use of /24 >> The efficient utilization of an entire previously allocated /24 from their >> upstream ISP. This allocation may have been provided by an ISP's upstream >> provider(s), and does not have to be contiguous address space. >> >> 4.2.2.1.4. Renumber and return >> ISPs receiving a new allocation may wish to renumber out of their previously >> allocated space. In this case, an ISP must use the new allocation to >> renumber out of that previously allocated block of address space and must >> return the space to its upstream provider. >> >> 4.2.2.2. [section number retired] >> >> 4.3.2 Minimum assignment >> >> 4.3.2.1. [section moved to 4.3.2] >> The minimum block of IP address space assigned by ARIN to end-users is a >> /24. If assignments smaller than /24 are needed, end-users should contact >> their upstream provider. >> >> 4.3.2.2 [section number retired] >> >> 4.9 [section number retired] >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. > >
_______________________________________________ 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.
