Re: 2016-4 I am in support of the policy proposal as stated. rd On Jul 26, 2016 9:22 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants > (Brian Jones) > 2. Weekly posting summary for [email protected] ([email protected]) > 3. Advisory Council Meeting Results - July 2016 (ARIN) > 4. Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM (ARIN) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 21:11:54 -0400 > From: Brian Jones <[email protected]> > To: John Springer <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new > entrants > Message-ID: > <CANyqO+E+MHgCzbhD=-ofi+XT6zsvi= > [email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Support. > > On Jul 20, 2016 3:39 PM, "John Springer" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Dear PPML, > > > > ARIN-2016-4 was accepted as a Draft Policy in June. > > > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_4.html > > > > Expressions of support or opposition to the DP are solicited to assist in > > evaluating what to do with it in the run up to the meeting in Dallas. > > > > At the moment, it appears technically sound and fair to me, but > > expressions of support will be required to advance. > > > > Thank you in advance. > > > > John Springer > > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 8:40 AM, ARIN <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 16 June 2016 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following > >> Proposal to Draft Policy status: > >> > >> ARIN-prop-229: Transfers for new entrants > >> > >> This Draft Policy has been numbered and titled: > >> > >> Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants > >> > >> Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4 is below and can be found at: > >> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_4.html > >> > >> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will > >> evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this draft > >> policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as > stated > >> in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles > are: > >> > >> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration > >> * Technically Sound > >> * Supported by the Community > >> > >> The PDP can be found at: > >> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > >> > >> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > >> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Communications and Member Services > >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > >> > >> ########## > >> > >> Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants > >> > >> Date: 21 June, 2016 > >> Problem Statement: > >> > >> New organizations without existing IPv4 space may not always be able to > >> qualify for an initial allocation under NRPM 4.2, particularly if they > are > >> categorized as ISPs and subject to 4.2.2.1.1. Use of /24. Now that > ARIN's > >> free pool is exhausted, 4.2.1.6. Immediate need states that "These cases > >> are exceptional", but that is no longer correct. End user organizations > >> requiring less a /24 of address space may also be unable to acquire > space > >> from their upstream ISP, and may instead need to receive a /24 from ARIN > >> via transfer. > >> > >> Policy statement: > >> > >> Replace Section 4.2.2 with: > >> > >> 4.2.2. Initial allocation to ISPs > >> > >> "All ISP organizations without direct assignments or allocations from > >> ARIN qualify for an initial allocation of up to a /21, subject to ARIN's > >> minimum allocation size. Organizations may qualify for a larger initial > >> allocation by documenting how the requested allocation will be utilized > >> within 24 months for specified transfers, or three months otherwise. > ISPs > >> renumbering out of their previous address space will be given a > reasonable > >> amount of time to do so, and any blocks they are returning will not > count > >> against their utilization. > >> > >> Replace Section 4.3.2 to read: > >> > >> 4.3.2 Minimum assignment > >> > >> ARIN's minimum assignment for end-user organizations is a /24. > >> > >> End-user organizations without direct assignments or allocations from > >> ARIN qualify for an initial assignment of ARIN's minimum assignment > size. > >> > >> Replace the first two sentences of Section 4.3.3. Utilization rate to > >> read: > >> > >> Organizations may qualify for a larger initial allocation by providing > >> appropriate details to verify their 24-month growth projection for > >> specified transfers, or 12 months otherwise. > >> > >> Resulting new section 4.3.3 will be: > >> > >> Organizations may qualify for a larger initial allocation, by providing > >> appropriate details to verify their 24-month growth projection for > >> specified transfers, or 12 months otherwise. > >> > >> The basic criterion 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: > >> > >> Timetable for implementation: Immediate > >> > >> Anything else > >> > >> The text in 4.2.2 "for specified transfers, or three months otherwise" > >> and the text in 4.3.3 "for specified transfers, or 12 months otherwise" > >> should be stricken if ARIN-prop-227 is adopted. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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. > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20160721/72781c9f/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 00:53:03 -0400 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Total of 6 messages in the last 7 days. > > script run at: Fri Jul 22 00:53:03 EDT 2016 > > Messages | Bytes | Who > --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ > 16.67% | 1 | 26.63% | 29094 | [email protected] > 16.67% | 1 | 19.27% | 21057 | [email protected] > 16.67% | 1 | 19.21% | 20994 | [email protected] > 16.67% | 1 | 17.63% | 19259 | [email protected] > 16.67% | 1 | 9.55% | 10434 | [email protected] > 16.67% | 1 | 7.72% | 8432 | [email protected] > --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ > 100.00% | 6 |100.00% | 109270 | Total > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 09:13:41 -0400 > From: ARIN <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - July 2016 > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN > Advisory Council (AC) met on 21 July 2016. > > The AC has advanced the following Proposal to Draft Policy status (will > be posted for discussion): > > ARIN-prop-231: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM > > The AC advances Proposals to Draft Policy status once they are found to > be within the scope of the PDP, and contain a clear problem statement > and suggested changes to number resource policy text. > > The AC is continuing to work on: > > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR > Transfers to Specified Recipients) > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated > need for IPv4 transfers > > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-2: Change timeframes for IPv4 requests to > 24 months > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative simplified criteria for > justifying small IPv4 transfers > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5: Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer > Policy > > The PDP can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 09:21:29 -0400 > From: ARIN <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from > NRPM > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > On 21 July 2016, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following > Proposal to Draft Policy status: > > ARIN-prop-231: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM > > This Draft Policy has been numbered and titled: > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6 is below and can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_6.html > > You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will > evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this Draft > Policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy as > stated in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these > principles are: > > > Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration > > Technically Sound > > Supported by the Community > > The PDP can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > ########## > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM > > Date: 26 July 2016 > > Problem Statement: > > The HD-Ratio has become an anachronism in the NRPM and some of the > vestigial references to it create confusion about recommended prefix > sizes for IPv6 resulting in a belief in the community that ARIN endorses > the idea of /56s as a unit of measure in IPv6 assignments. While there > are members of the community that believe a /56 is a reasonable choice, > ARIN policy has always allowed and still supports /48 prefixes for any > and all end-sites without need for further justification. More > restrictive choices are still permitted under policy as well. This > proposal does not change that, but it attempts to eliminate some > possible confusion. > > The last remaining vestigial references to HD-Ratio are contained in the > community networks policy (Section 6.5.9). This policy seeks to replace > 6.5.9 with new text incorporating end user policy by reference (roughly > equivalent to the original intent of 6.5.9 prior to the more recent > changes to end-user policy). While this contains a substantial rewrite > to the Community Networks policy, it will not have any negative impact > on community networks. It may increase the amount of IPv6 space a > community network could receive due to the change from HD-Ratio, but not > more than any other similar sized end-user would receive under existing > policy. > > Policy statement: > > Replace section 6.5.9 in its entirety as follows: > > 6.5.9 Community Network Assignments > > While community networks would normally be considered to be ISP type > organizations under existing ARIN criteria, they tend to operate on much > tighter budgets and often depend on volunteer labor. As a result, they > tend to be much smaller and more communal in their organization rather > than provider/customer relationships of commercial ISPs. This section > seeks to provide policy that is more friendly to those environments by > allowing them to use end-user criteria. 6.5.9.1 Qualification Criteria > > To qualify under this section, a community network must demonstrate to > ARIN?s satisfaction that it meets the definition of a community network > under section 2.11 of the NRPM. 6.5.9.2 Receiving Resources > > Once qualified under this section, a community network shall be treated > as an end-user assignment for all ARIN purposes (both policy and fee > structure) unless or until the board adopts a specific more favorable > fee structure for community networks. > > Community networks shall be eligible under this section only for IPv6 > resources and the application process and use of those resources shall > be governed by the existing end-user policy contained in section 6.5.8 > et. seq. > > Community networks seeking other resources shall remain subject to the > policies governing those resources independent of their election to use > this policy for IPv6 resources. > > Delete section 2.8 ? This section is non-operative and conflicts with > the definitions of utilization contained in current policies. > > Delete section 2.9 ? This section is no longer operative. > > Delete section 6.7 ? This section is no longer applicable. > > Comments: > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > > Anything else > > Originally, I thought this would be an editorial change as the HD-Ratio > has been unused for several years. > > However, further research revealed that it is still referenced in the > Community Networks policy which has also gone unused since its > inception. As a result, I am going to attempt to simultaneously simplify > the Community Networks policy while preserving its intent and eliminate > the HD-Ratio from the NRPM. > > I realize that fees are out of scope for policy, however, in this case, > we are not setting fees. We are addressing in policy which fee structure > the given policy should operate under in a manner which does not > constrain board action on actual fees. > > This is an attempt to preserve the original intent of the Community > networks policy in a way that may make it less vestigial. > > Alternatively, we could simply delete Section 6.5.9 if that is > preferred. The primary goal here is to get rid of vestigial reference to > HD-Ratio rather than to get wrapped around the axle on community networks. > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 133, Issue 4 > ***************************************** >
_______________________________________________ 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.
