As shepherd, I need additional feedback on this, I need a better sense
of what the community wants here.
Should we move forward more or less as-is, with a minor editorial
change, substituting "criterion" for "criteria"?
Or, does the community want to work on a way to address the concerns
raised but Jason?
Your input please.
Thanks
On 1/29/16 10:00 , Jason Schiller wrote:
McTim,
WRT some other tangible and verifiable claim to show there was a real
commitment to use half the address space within one year...
I think there are 3 choices:
1. Very vague
Something like "there must be some tangible and verifiable claim to
show there was a real commitment to use half the address space within
one year and not just a future projection or business case"
2. Open ended with some guidance for ARIN staff:
Something like "there must be some tangible and verifiable claim to
show there was a real commitment to use half the address space within
one year and not just a future projection or business case. Some
examples include:
- list of equipment in hand to be numbered counting at least 25% of
requested IP size
- invoices showing equipment purchases demonstrating a commitment to buy
equipment to be numbered counting at least 25% of requested IP size
- invoices showing equipment purchases demonstrating a commitment to buy
equipment to be numbered counting at least 50% of requested IP size
within one year
- lease agreements for real estate supporting equipment that is
appropratly sized to support equipment to be numbered counting at least
50% of requested IP size
3. specific criterion
----
I don't know what it the right answer here, and suspect it has more to
do with what the community is comfortable with.
On one end of the spectrum is choice 1. This allows ARIN to do the
right thing. But this also is not clear about what the community
expects, and ARIN may act in a way that is counter to what is
anticipated, and may seem like ARIN is being arbitrary or has too much
leeway to screw with requestors.
The opposite end of the spectrum is choice 3. This sets a very clear
list of what qualifies. Hammering out that list may be very difficult,
and it is unlikely to be complete. This will leave little or no room
for ARIN to do the right thing and approve a request that is justified,
but not one of the criterion listed.
Choice 2 is the middle ground. Where we have a not necessarily complete
list of criterion (so somewhat less difficulty in drawing up the list)
that creates a very clear expectation of what ARIN should accept (and
reduces the possibility that ARIN may act in a way that is counter to
what is anticipated, and may seem like ARIN is being arbitrary or has
too much leeway to screw with requestors) with respect to criterion
clearly defined, while also allowing ARIN to do the right thing with
similar types of proof that are not explicitly listed as criterion (this
has somewhat higher risk that ARIN may act in a way that is counter to
what is anticipated, and may seem like ARIN is being arbitrary or has
too much leeway to screw with requestors, but less risk than option 1 as
the criterion should serve as good guidance)
So two open questions to the community?
1. Is the community most comfortable with:
A. totally vague and open-ended such as "there must be some
tangible and verifiable claim to show there was a real commitment to
use half the address space within one year and not just a future
projection or business case"
B. A vague statement with some guidance as to some acceptable forms
of tangible verifiable proof of a real commitment to use half the IP
address within one year.
C. A very clear list of what proof is considered acceptable
2. If the community prefers B. guidance or C. a very clear list then
what sort of things would the community like to see on that list?
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 8:27 AM, McTim <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Jason Schiller
<[email protected] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
<tel:1-612-626-0815>
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
<tel:1-612-812-9952>
================================================
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you
experience any issues.
--
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>|571-266-0006 <tel:571-266-0006>
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[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
--
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|[email protected]
<mailto:[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.
--
================================================
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.
