On Apr 25, 2016, at 12:47 PM, Jason Schiller
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
...
I suspect the 30 days part does (to some extent) regulate outrageously large
claims, as this is a real short term verifiable commitment. Without a
possibility of a 30 day check you simply fall back to an officer attestation of
a two year projected need claim.
I am trying to figure out what is the likely impact of only requiring a two
year projected need claim. So my questions are regarding to what level of push
back ARIN provides against two year projected need in general, and will that be
sufficient to prevent outlandishly large claims.
Maybe another way to get at this is to compare end user transfer stats to ISP
transfer stats.
- what percentage of ISP specified transfers are justified by past growth? by
a two year projection?
- what percentage of end user specified transfers are justified by past growth?
by a two year projection?
- what is the average size of ISP specified transfers that are justified by
past growth? by a two year projection?
- what is the average size of end user specified transfers that are justified
by past growth? by a two year projection?
- do we see a greater gap between average ISP size between specified transfers
that are justified by past growth vs. by a two year projection?
- do we see a greater percentage of ISP transfers justified by a 2 year
projection than end users?
Jason -
While we dp collect statistics on the number of requests and outcomes, we do
not have the instrumentation of the needs-assessment process that would be
necessary to produce the type of statistics you request. It is also not
clear that
such instrumentation would allow us to provide an exact percentage of
requests
that are approved based on past growth vs. projections because ARIN takes
both factors into account when evaluating operational need.
In order to provide some insight into how the needs-assessment process
operates
with respect to past growth versus projection, we’ve provided several
examples on
how the needs-assessment process would unfold for various 8.3 specified
transfer
scenarios detailed below.
When an existing ARIN account, ISP or End-User, requests an 8.3 Recipient
Transfer, ARIN will look at their historical utilization and determine the
organizations
average 24-month usage trend. We will compare that to what they are
currently
requesting to have transferred and determine if that amount aligns with
their prior
utilization trend. If it does align directly, then we consider that the
justification for
their 24-month stated need, but often we have to also give some
consideration to
the information they provide regarding future plans and potential impact on
growth
rate.
=== Example A
An existing ARIN Organization requests a /16 transfer via 8.3 transfer process.
They previously received the following IPv4 address space:
/17 in December 2015
/17 in October 2015
/18 in July 2015
/19 in June 2015
/20 in May 2015
/20 in February 2015
In this example, ARIN would request 24-month projections AND utilization
information from the organization. We would verify they have utilized their
previously received IPv4 blocks in accordance with policy and determine their
utilization trend. In this example, the organization has fully utilized their
previous allocations and we note their historical utilization of 384 /24s over
the past 18 months. Even though we are also taking their future plans into
consideration, their prior utilization trend is heavily weighted in justifying
the newly requested /16 and they are approved. Their prior 24 months of
utilization exceeds what they are requesting for the next 24 months.
=== Example B
An existing ARIN Organization requests a /16 transfer via 8.3 transfer process.
They previously received the following IPv4 address space:
/19 in December 2015
/20 in October 2015
/21 in July 2015
/22 in June 2015
/23 in May 2015
In this example, ARIN would again request 24-month projections AND utilization
information from the organization. We would verify they have utilized their
previously received IPv4 blocks in accordance with policy and determine their
utilization trend. In this example, the organization has fully utilized their
previous allocations and we note their historical utilization trend of 62 /24s
over the past 11 months. Their prior utilization suggests a utilization trend
of 136 /24s over a 24-month period (62 / 11 * 24mos = 135.3 or 136). The
organization’s 24-month utilization trend does not meet or exceed the amount of
IPv4 address space they are requesting for the next 24-month period, so the
information they provide regarding their future plans/need is more heavily
weighted by ARIN staff. The information provided regarding future need paired
with their utilization trend allows for an approval for the requested size
(/16).
=== Example C
An existing ARIN Organization requests a /16 transfer via 8.3 transfer process.
Without providing the further background details, the requesting organization
in this example has utilized their previously received blocks in accordance
with policy and has a 24-month utilization trend of 65 /24s. The organization’s
24-month utilization trend does not meet or exceed the amount of IPv4 address
space they are requesting for the next 24-month period, so the information they
provide regarding their future plans/need is more heavily weighted by ARIN
staff. The future need projections only slightly increase expected future
utilization over their prior utilization trend and a need for 100 /24s is
determined for the next 24-month period. Unfortunately, the information
provided regarding future need paired with their utilization trend does not
allow for the approval of the requested /16, and a /17 (closest prefix size
above their demonstrated need amount) is approved instead.
===
Similarly, if a new organization comes to ARIN for an 8.3 Recipient Transfer
we
would base their approval on any provider assigned space they are currently
using
and their projections. We would do this similar to the examples noted above.
It is important to note that if a new organization comes to ARIN and isn't
using any
provider assigned space, we are only be able to base their approval amounts
based
on their projections.
When we ask organization for their forward projections, we also ask them to
provide
details to show how they've arrived at their projections. We take into
account factors
such as new networks, locations, products, services they plan on offering
(and this
includes consideration of anticipated address utilization within the first
30 days for
end-users.)
Given we take all of these factors into account (and noting that we don’t
precisely track if
they qualified more heavily on historical usage vs. projections), we would
estimate between
50-75% of the approval decisions made are more heavily weighted by
historical utilization
trend information. It is important to note that the historical utilization
trend information often
allows for an approval size equal to or greater than what is requested by
most organizations.
While this is not the level of detail that you desire, I hope it provides some
useful insight
into the role of the future projections in the needs-assessment process.
Best wishes on your policy development efforts!
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
_______________________________________________
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.
