John, Thank you for the lengthy description. I'm not sure I understand what your estimate means so I will attempt to restate them for clarity.
It sounds like in 50% - 75% of the requests that are approved have historical utilization is sufficient to provide approval. Example A & C. It sounds like in 25% - 50% of the requests that are approved have historical utilization is not sufficient to provide approval. Example B. It sounds like you did not provide information on how often a request justified on a future projection is approved only in the amount justified by historical utilization Example C, or is altogether denied or abandoned. Do these numbers include both end-user and ISP requests? Could you provide a similar estimate broken down between end-user and ISP requests? Do both ISP requests and end-user requests have the same percentage of requests approved being more heavily weighted by historical utilization trend information? Or do end-user requests have a higher percentage of approvals being more heavily weighted by historical utilization trend information? Or do ISP requests have a higher percentage of approvals being more heavily weighted by historical utilization trend information? Thanks, __Jason On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 7:15 AM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: > On Apr 25, 2016, at 12:47 PM, Jason Schiller <[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 > > > > > -- _______________________________________________________ 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.
