On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Jason Schiller <[email protected]> wrote:
> I support the removal of the 30 day utilization as it is unreasonable for > any larger end-site, who may have a real need for say a /16, with 65,000 > desktops arriving on a loading doc next week, but an inability to unbox, > configure and deploy 16,384 to the various office locations in 30 days. > > agreed. > However, this is the only provision that has a real, tangible, and > verifiable claim. Without this check justified need for end users simply > becomes a 1 year future looking projection, and with sufficient arm waving > an easy end run around justified need for any end user with no IP space or > if they are efficiently using what they currently hold. > > good point! > I could get on board if the maximum sized block permitted on a purely > future looking projection was a /24 and you had to use it prior to getting > more. > > +1 > I could certainly get on board if there were some other tangible and > verifiable claim to show there was a real commitment to use half the > address space within one year. > > Would this language suffice, or would we need a metric of some sort? Regards, McTim > __Jason > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Brian Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Looks good to me Dave. I am okay with using criteria or criterion, >> however using the strict definition it looks as though criterion is the >> proper singular form. >> >> -- >> Brian >> >> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 5:54 PM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> The following is the proposed update for ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-Day >>> Utilization Requirement in End-User IPv4 Policy based on strong support in >>> Montreal. >>> >>> Beyond deleting the 25% bullet as the policy says, their are editorial >>> changes as follows to the remaining text; >>> >>> - It looks weird to have single item bullet list, so merge the two >>> remaining sentence fragments into a single sentence. >>> - Change "are" to "is", since there is only one remaining criteria >>> - Use of "criteria" as a singular is common usage, even though >>> technically it's plural. >>> - Resulting in "The basic criteria that must be met is a 50% utilization >>> rate within one year." >>> >>> The remaining and resulting text for 4.3.3 is now included in the policy >>> text, for editorial clarity. The original staff and legal suggested >>> removing the RFC2050 reference and also pointed out that >>> 4.2.3.6 also has a 25% immediate use clause and a RFC2050 reference. >>> >>> Feedback in Montreal was that deleting the 25% immediate use was a nice >>> bite-sized change, and we shouldn't try to do more than that with this >>> change, so those changes are not included at this time. >>> >>> Any additional feedback or comments are appreciated. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> --------- >>> >>> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in >>> end-user IPv4 policy >>> >>> Date: 27 January 2015 >>> >>> Problem Statement: >>> >>> End-user policy is intended to provide end-users with a one year supply >>> of IP addresses. Qualification for a one-year supply requires the network >>> operator to utilize at least 25% of the requested addresses within 30 days. >>> This text is unrealistic and should be removed. >>> >>> First, it often takes longer than 30 days to stage equipment and start >>> actually using the addresses. >>> >>> Second, growth is often not that regimented; the forecast is to use X >>> addresses over the course of a year, not to use 25% of X within 30 days. >>> >>> Third, this policy text applies to additional address space requests. It >>> is incompatible with the requirements of other additional address space >>> request justification which indicates that 80% utilization of existing >>> space is sufficient to justify new space. If a block is at 80%, then often >>> (almost always?) the remaining 80% will be used over the next 30 days and >>> longer. Therefore the operator cannot honestly state they will use 25% of >>> the ADDITIONAL space within 30 days of receiving it; they're still trying >>> to use their older block efficiently. >>> >>> Fourth, in the face of ARIN exhaustion, some ISPs are starting to not >>> give out /24 (or larger) blocks. So the justification for the 25% rule that >>> previously existed (and in fact, applied for many years) is no longer >>> germane. >>> >>> Policy statement: >>> >>> Remove the 25% utilization criteria bullet point from NRPM 4.3.3. >>> >>> Resulting text: >>> >>> 4.3.3. Utilization rate >>> >>> Utilization rate of address space is a key factor in justifying a new >>> assignment of IP address space. Requesters must show exactly how >>> previous address assignments have been utilized and must provide >>> appropriate details to verify their one-year growth projection. >>> >>> The basic criteria that must be met is a 50% utilization rate within one >>> year. >>> >>> A greater utilization rate may be required based on individual network >>> requirements. Please refer to RFC 2050 for more information on >>> utilization guidelines. >>> >>> Comments: >>> a.Timetable for implementation: Immediate >>> b.Anything else >>> >>> -- >>> ================================================ >>> 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. >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. >> > > > > -- > _______________________________________________________ > 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. > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
_______________________________________________ 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.
