All, Given the ongoing debate and somewhat strong sentiment at different points of the "needs testing" spectrum, ARIN-2014-17 should be considered as a solution to some of the problems which are partially driving the movement to remove needs testing.
I would also like to caution against convoluting -17 too much. Some of the dissenters are recommending various changes which I feel would make the policy unnecessarily complicated and in the effort to compromise, may actually make it more difficult to find consensus. Thanks, Jeff On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jun 25, 2014, at 08:42 , <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 15:04:17 -0700 > Andrew Dul <[email protected]> wrote: > > The problem described below appears to be more related to the current > 3-month window for additional allocations, not necessarily the > utilization metric. The 3-month window has had a number of > side-effects, some of which were not anticipated when that policy was > put in place. With run-out in the region approaching rapidly we need to > turn our attention to the longer term policies which will support the > desires of the community (as best possible) through the transfer market > or other mechanisms. Changing the utilization formula (for those > requests which do require a formal needs assessment) may be part of the > policy changes which are needed. > > Some of the problem of the formula are long standing. If your last > allocation > was a /22 and you have a larger customer come to you with a legitimate and > clear need for a /22 or /21 you have no way of getting it no matter what % > utilization > is in the policy. It has always seemed to me, that "need" should have a lot > more to > do with what you are going to do with the requested allocation, and what is > available > in your current allocations, than some arbitrary utilization percentage. The > problem is that ARIN would then have to get into network design arguments. > > > Actually, I believe that this circumstance is the reason that the immediate > needs clause > exists. > > 4.2.1.6. Immediate need > > If an ISP has an immediate need for address space, and can provide > justification to show that the address space will be utilized within 30 days > of the request, ARIN may issue a block of address space, not larger than a > /16 nor smaller than ARIN's customary minimum allocation, to that > organization. These cases are exceptional. > > Perhaps, in practice, since it is located in principles (not sure how or why > that occurred), and there isn't anything concrete stating that it should be > treated as an exception to 4.2.4.1, it does not get implemented as I believe > was intended. Staff would have to clarify that. If that is the case, it > would be a relatively simple proposal to fix: > > Amend section 4.2.4 by adding: > 4.2.4.5 Exceptional Cases of Immediate Need > If a subscriber member has a customer who needs a larger block than remains > in the subscriber member's > free pool, then a request under section 4.2.1.6 shall apply as an exception > to the requirements in 4.2.4.1. > > The argument that just removing the needs test for smaller allocations > entirely > has some merit. The problem seems to be in defining what is small. A > compromise of /20 has > been suggested and I think it's reasonable. Even though I support needs > testing I can support removing it at a /20 and smaller. > > > I really think that removing the needs test is unlikely to gain consensus, > even at the smaller point. There is clear resistance in the community to > this idea and I expect that opposition will remain strong. > > If people support the idea above, I'm happy to put it into a policy template > and get it started in the process. If there is strong support, it can > probably be moved through the process fairly quickly. > > Owen > > > Larry Ash > > Andrew > On 6/24/2014 1:08 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > > This is the problem I'm trying to solve and why I've been so vocal about it. > Steven Ryerse > President > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > 770.656.1460 - Cell > 770.399.9099- Office > > ℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc. > Conquering Complex Networks℠ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Tim Gimmel > Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 4:04 PM > To: [email protected] List > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy discussion - Method of > calculatingutilization ARIN-2014-17 > > > The problem is that the current process has disenfranchised smaller > companies who are somewhat frequently requesting space under the 3 month > need projection and are ending up with many /22's, /21's etc instead of the > /20 or /19 that would have been possible prior to austerity measures. > To make matters worse, it does not seem that such companies are > substantially represented on PPML so it is creating an illusion that the > policy is not necessary or would not be supported by the community at large > (outside of PPML). > > This is exactly what is happening, for example I have 4 /20's and a /19 from > earlier days, but now I have 7 /21's and that is the most I will ever be > able to request. We are using every possible way to keep IPv4 usage down. > > --Tim > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > > > Larry Ash > Network Administrator > Mountain West Telephone > 123 W 1st St. > Casper, WY 82601 > Office 307 233-8387 > _______________________________________________ > 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. -- Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP-ISSMP Fellow, Black Lotus Communications mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: [email protected] | skype: blacklotus.net _______________________________________________ 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.
