I'm worried that people are confusing policy proposals; ARIN 2015-3:Remove 30 day utilization requirement in end-user IPv4 policy, simply removes the 25% immediate need (30-day) clause, it shouldn't really change anything else.
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Jason Schiller <[email protected]> wrote: > After the topic of 2015-3 closed I was discussing the policy with some folks > and there seems to be some confusion. > > If 2015-3 was current ARIN policy what would staff accept as an acceptable > justification. > > It was my assumption that an ARIN ticket that said "We might have 9 million > new customers in the next two years. We would like transfer approval for a > /8. We are currently holding a /21 which we intend to keep." And an > officer of the company attests to this. Then ARIN would accept this > justification as sufficient. > > Others postulated that the amount of documentation required would be > unchanged from what it previously was. For a two year transfer approval > that is not based on a doubling of the previous 1 year run rate, a requester > would still have to submit a business case supporting the two year growth > need, and the officer would have to attest to that business case. The only > difference here is that ARIN would not review the business case except that > the project count of things in two years is more that 50% of what is > requested plus what is held. This means ARIN would not review the > supporting documentation of the business case, and leave that up to the > officer of the requesting company to do. Is that correct? > > > Additionally, can staff provide some statistics on the following: > > 1. over the last year how many end user transfer (pre-)approvals were > justified based on past growth? > > 2. over the last year how many end user transfer (pre-)approvals were > justified based on > a future looking growth projection that was not based an past growth? > > 3. Of the requests in type 2 above, how many were: > - Approved with no additional questions asked about the growth projection > (not including the request for attestation)? > - How many with one additional question about the growth projection? > - How many with two or more additional questions about the growth > projection? > - How many were closed with no (pre-)approval during additional questions > about the growth projection? > - How many were left unresolved for 30 days or more (or abandoned) during > additional questions about the growth projection > > > I realize that some or all of the stats questions may take some time to > answer. Please feel free to answer the first question about what > documentation is required to be in the ticket and attested to, and any stats > that are easily found, and follow up with the more time consuming stats > later. > > Thanks, > > __Jason > > > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Jason Schiller <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Just in case it wasn't clear, I oppose as written as it has no teeth and >> can easily be an end user end-run around justified need. >> >> I support the change with some teeth so it is not likely to be an end-run >> around justified need. >> >> __Jason >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Brian Jones <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Richard J. Letts <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> My preference is to apply the policy change as written (with the minor >>>> editorial change substituting "criterion" for "criteria".) >>> >>> >>> +1 >>> -- >>> Brian >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thank you >>>> Richard Letts >>>> >>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> > On >>>> > Behalf Of David Farmer >>>> > Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 9:23 PM >>>> > To: ARIN PPML <[email protected]> >>>> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-Day Utilization >>>> > Requirement in End-User IPv4 Policy >>>> > >>>> > 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. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> > > > > -- > _______________________________________________________ > 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. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:[email protected] Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 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.
