To be clear, I’m proposing a 6 month sliding window. Owen
> On Feb 9, 2017, at 08:39 , Jason Schiller <[email protected]> wrote: > > Owen, > > After reading your mail, I noticed I artificially shortened the text for C. > It should have been what you described as your preferred choice. > > Re-asking the question for clarity (and hopes of getting new voices). > > We have a few options on the table and only a few voices in the discussion... > > I'd like to quickly outline the options, and see if we can get more people to > weigh in and either note they object to one or more options, are ambivalent > to one or more options, or support one or more options (with some preference). > > > 1. demonstrate 80% utilization on average for all your IP space > 2. get pre-authorization for 1 or more transfers up to double your current > holdings over then two years > 2.1. this is limited to a /16 > > A. you can use this policy once every 6 months > > B. If you need to use this policy more than once every 6 months you need to > also demonstrate growth equaling half what you have transferred since you > last used this policy. > > C. You can use this policy to transfer a total of up to a /16 every 6 months > > Where do you stand on A, B or C? > > > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Respectfully I reject your premise on the fairness. > > Neither A, nor C prevent large organizations from getting more, they merely > require that they use other less simplified provisions of the existing policy. > > I think what I support is sort of a hybrid between A and C in that I believe > you should be able to use the policy to transfer as often as you want, so > long as your transfers within any 6 month period under this policy don’t > exceed a /16. You’d still be able to transfer a /16 under this policy and > then use other existing policies if you needed more. > > Owen > >> On Feb 7, 2017, at 12:04 , Jason Schiller <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> I support B. >> >> It puts added work on those who need more than a /16, or have a growth rate >> more than doubling every half yeah, but does not prevent organizations who >> need IP addresses from getting them. >> >> I oppose A and C as they are unfair, >> >> A. >> - unfairly penalizes large organizations that need more than a /16 >> - unfairly penalizes organizations growing faster than double their >> current holding >> (especially new organizations that started with a /24 and have a growth >> rate greater than 512 customer per year) >> >> C. >> - unfairly penalizes large organizations that need more than a /16 >> - unfairly penalizes organizations growing faster than double their >> current holding >> - unfairly does not penalizes organizations growing faster than double >> their current holding so long as they need less than a /16 >> >> >> A > B or B > A? >> >> I can't decide if A is less unfair because there is no carve out for >> organizations that need less than a /16. On one hand those needing less >> than a /16 are not treated unfairly as a special class, but as a result the >> number of organizations who need IP addresses that are rate limited is >> greater. >> >> Or if C is less unfair because it is unfair to have a carve out for the >> organization that need less than a /16 for exactly the opposite reasons. >> >> __Jason >> >> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Jason Schiller <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> We have a few options on the table and only a few voices in the discussion... >> >> I'd like to quickly outline the options, and see if we can get more people >> to weigh in and either note they object to one or more options, are >> ambivalent to one or more options, or support one or more options (with some >> preference). >> >> >> 1. demonstrate 80% utilization on average for all your IP space >> 2. get pre-authorization for 1 or more transfers up to double your current >> holdings over then two years >> 2.1. this is limited to a /16 >> >> A. you can use this policy once every 6 months >> >> B. If you need to use this policy more than once every 6 months you need to >> also demonstrate growth equalling half what you have transferred since you >> last used this policy. >> >> C. you can use this policy to transfer a total of up to a /16 >> >> Where do you stand on A, B or C? >> >> __Jason >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 7:01 PM, Scott Leibrand <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> That would be a significant improvement on the current ("An organization may >> only qualify under 8.5.7 once every 6 months.") text. I would be equally >> fine with this text ("No more than a total of a /16 equivalent may be >> transferred under these provisions within any 6 month period." or similar) >> or with Jason's ("An organization may only qualify under 8.5.7 once every 6 >> months, unless they can also demonstrate growth of IPv4 utilization of at >> least half of the amount of specified transfers since the previous transfer >> pre-authorization or approval.") >> >> Thanks, >> Scott >> >> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Simple to resolve for the 6-month horizon — >> >> … Such that no more than a total of a /16 equivalent may be transferred >> under these provisions within any 6 month period. … >> >> Owen >> >> > On Feb 3, 2017, at 07:19 , David R Huberman <[email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > >> > >> > I thought of a possible problem with the anti-abuse language -- all >> > versions of it. Let me talk it out. >> > >> > An organization has a /19. >> > It has growing products, and wants another /19 for its 1 or 2 year need. >> > It wants to avail itself of the new language. >> > It is able to buy a /20 from Buyer A, and a /20 from Buyer B. >> > >> > It closes the deal with Buyer A first, and transfers at ARIN using the >> > proposed language. >> > >> > How does it use any version we've discussed (Jason's various proposals, >> > the current text, etc) to transfer the space it buys from Buyer B? >> > >> > >> > (In all discussion, yes, you can always use the other sections of 8.5, but >> > let's stick to the spirit of this policy language, which is meant to help >> > smaller and mid-size networks double their holdings without needs testing.) >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 >> > <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 >> <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 >> <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)%20266-0006> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> _______________________________________________________ >> Jason Schiller|NetOps|[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>|571-266-0006 <tel:(571)%20266-0006> >> > > > > > -- > _______________________________________________________ > 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.
