You have always been able to get space from ARIN based on forward-looking business cases, but it has been limited.
This applies to both free pool and transfers equally, though free pool being limited to a 3-month window now for ISPs makes “forward” a little less useful. I would venture that most end-user initial allocations are based on at least somewhat forward-looking projections. Owen On Sep 23, 2014, at 11:13 AM, Martin Hannigan <[email protected]> wrote: > ARIN is not qualified to limit Internet competition based on b-case review. > > I'd be interested to hear how they would accomplish this. > > Best, > > -M< > > > > On Sep 23, 2014, at 20:01, Jason Schiller <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello PPML, >> >> I wanted to start a new thread on the topic of ARIN's current procedure of >> assessing 24 month need for transfers based on a future looking business >> plan that is not supported by half as much utilization over the previous >> year. >> >> Personally I was surprised when we were discussing 2014-20 that objections >> arose from the removal of the current practice of permitting ARIN to base a >> justification on a future looking business plan. >> >> My understanding is that the original 2008-6 required the transfer to be "in >> the exact amount which can be justified under ARIN resource-allocation >> policies." Meaning you can only transfer as much address space as you could >> otherwise qualify for from ARIN. >> >> This was modified in 2011-11 when we moved the ARIN requests for ISPs to a 3 >> month time horizon, we pushed out the transfer time horizon to one year. >> The net result being to bring in the time horizon of ARIN allocations >> without impacting the time horizon of transfers. (this also suggests that >> the amount of space an organization qualifies for under transfers was >> previously tied to how much space they qualify for under section 4) There >> was no modification in how need is measured. >> >> Then 2011-12 was a simple change to push out transfers from a 1 year time >> horizon to a two year time horizon. >> >> Then 2011-1 split out inter-ARIN transfers from intra-ARIn transfers, but >> did not change the workings of intra-ARIN transfers. >> >> 2012-1 broke down the policies into bullets. There was some early >> discussion about removing utilization as a measure of policy compliance, but >> that was too controversial and dropped. >> >> It was my understanding that when discussed and adopted 2008-6 that >> transfers were only to be permitted "in the exact amount which can be >> justified under ARIN resource-allocation policies." >> >> 2012-3 was a simple change to "number resources". >> >> So where did this idea that you could qualify differently for transfer space >> than ARIN space other than simply being permitted a larger time horizon? >> >> Are others in the community equally surprised by the ability to get space on >> a future looking business case? >> >> Supporting data below. >> >> __Jason >> >> Tthe original 2008-6 required the transfer to be "in the exact amount which >> can be justified under ARIN resource-allocation policies." Meaning you can >> only transfer as much address space as you could otherwise qualify for from >> ARIN. >> >> I took this to mean that you could only qualify for a certain amount of >> space on the transfer market if you would otherwise qualify to get that same >> space from ARIN (if they had it to offer). >> >> Bill Darte, as originator of 2008-6 is that what was intended? >> >> "It's intent is to preserve the current tradition of needs-based allocation >> and assignment because that's what we've heard clearly out of discussion up >> to this point in time in this community. ... The policy says need in >> accordance with current and applicable ARIN policy." >> >> --- >> >> This was further modified in 2011-11 where we reduce ARIN >> allocations/assignments to 3 months, and moved the 1 year restriction from >> the ARIN allocation/assignment section 4 to the transfer section. This >> yields the more familiar text: >> >> "...they can justify under current ARIN policies showing how the addresses >> will be utilized within 12 months." >> >> At the time there was some controversy for how need should be determined for >> transfers, but that portion of the policy was dropped. >> >> "not clear how "justified need" has been or should be determined, however >> this proposal no longer addresses this." >> >> My read is 2011-11 leave the previous needs test in place. >> >> --- >> >> This was immediately further modified by 2011-12 which simply extended the >> time from 12 to 24 months. >> >> It was modified by 2011-1 which removed and added ARIN specific language to >> separate intra-ARIN transfers, but did not change the intra-ARIN policy >> otherwise. >> >> --- >> >> 2012-1 broke the requirements down into bullets and added additional >> requirements that the organization providing the space for transfer is >> ineligible for additional space from ARIN for 12 months, and could not have >> received ARIN space 12 months prior to the transfer. It also established a >> minimum of a /24. >> >> The text changed from: >> >> "Such transferred number resources may only be received uder RSA by >> organizations that are within the ARIN region and can demonstrate the need >> for such resources in the amount which they can justify under current ARIN >> policies showing how the addresses will be utilized within 24 months" >> >> to: >> "Conditions on recipient of the transfer: >> * 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. >> * The resources transferred will be subject to current ARIN policies." >> >> While the word "justify" is gone I believe the intent is still intact. >> There is some discussion in the rational that >> "The one key point that has been removed from the original text is that a >> needs based >> review remains in place." >> >> This refers to the original prop that added a clause to remove needs based >> reviews, which is not part of the adopted draft. >> this text that was dropped is: >> "and add to the NRPM Section 12: >> 10. ARIN will not use utilization as a measure of policy compliance >> for addresses transferred under 8.3." >> >> this was then further modified by 2012-3 but that just changed IP addresses >> to number resources... >> >> >> >> >> -- >> _______________________________________________________ >> Jason Schiller|NetOps|[email protected]|571-266-0006 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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.
