Well, section 4 doesn’t govern transfers since we decoupled it anyway, so I’m not sure if we want to make staff behavior consistent or not. I would argue that moving the transfer boundary to /21 would make more sense than moving the section 4 boundary to /24, if we are going to synchronize them.
However, as you point out, transfers are governed by 8.5.5 and only free pool is governed by section 4 unless section 4 is referenced by section 8. As you may recall, I opposed this decoupling because of the confusion and disparity in protocol I expected to result. Now we’re exactly where I predicted we’d be. Owen > On Jan 18, 2018, at 3:03 PM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote: > > From the updated problem statement: If an organization applies under section > 8 first they are initially qualified for a /24, larger allocations require > additional documentation as noted in 8.5.5. > > Again, whether a change in policy or staff practice, what do we want to > happen? > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 4:38 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > The existing language “up to a /21” is consistent with staff allowing you to > obtain a /24 via transfer. > > Are you telling me that staff is refusing /21 transfers, but allowing /24 > transfers to new ISPs without further justification? If so, I would argue > that current staff practice is in error vs. policy language. > > Owen > >> On Jan 18, 2018, at 2:37 PM, David Farmer <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Owen, >> >> Yep, that was an editing error, it should have been; >> >> 4.2.2. Initial allocation to ISPs >> >> All ISP organizations without direct assignments or allocations from ARIN >> qualify for an initial allocation of a /24. Organizations may qualify for a >> larger initial allocation by documenting how the requested allocation will >> be utilized within 24 months. >> >> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> I see no reason to move the boundary for an ISP initial allocation from /21 >> to /24. >> >> Well that seems to be staff intrupretation if you are getting an initial >> allocation via a transfer, how would you reslove this then? >> >> Thanks. >> >> I certainly see no reason for “up to a /24” as there’s nothing smaller >> available and even if it were, it wouldn’t be useful in any foreseeable >> environment. >> >> Owen >> >>> On Jan 18, 2018, at 2:21 PM, David Farmer <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> David, >>> >>> The resolution you suggest below seems like a different policy proposal to >>> me, one with a significantly broader scope than this draft policy has. But >>> I think it is a valid question for the community to consider, it's just not >>> really the problem statement in question for this Draft Policy. >>> >>> So, back within the scope of this Draft Policy as the shepherd, I plan to >>> push forward Andrew's updated Problem Statement with a Policy Statement >>> that harmonizes and simplifies the text in section 4.2.2 as an official >>> update to this Draft Policy to get the conversation moving again. >>> >>> The current text of 4.2.2 is; >>> >>> 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. 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. >>> >>> The text "subject to ARIN's minimum allocation size" seems extraneous. >>> And, post runout renumbering and returning any address space seems >>> unlikely, so let's just eliminate that whole sentence. >>> >>> I propose we simplify that to the following; >>> >>> 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 /24. Organizations may qualify >>> for a larger initial allocation by documenting how the requested allocation >>> will be utilized within 24 months. >>> >>> Below is the policy update that results; >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> -------- >>> >>> Draft Policy ARIN-2017-9: Clarification of Initial Block Size for IPv4 ISP >>> Transfers >>> >>> Problem Statement: >>> >>> It was noted in the ARIN 40 Policy Experience Report, that there is an >>> inconsistency in the initial block size for ISPs. Section 4.2.2 notes that >>> the initial ISP block size should be /21 whereas the initial block size in >>> 8.5.4 is noted as "minimum transfer size" which is effectively a /24. This >>> causes ISP organizations to be approved for different initial block size >>> depending on if they first apply for a transfer directly under section 8 or >>> if they apply for a block under section 4. This policy is intended to >>> clarify this issue, by setting a consistent ISP initial IPv4 block size. It >>> was noted that ARIN staff current operational practice is to allow >>> qualified ISPs an initial /21 for Section 8 transfers when they first apply >>> and are approved under section 4. If an organization applies under section >>> 8 first they are initially qualified for a /24, larger allocations require >>> additional documentation as noted in 8.5.5. >>> >>> Policy Statement: >>> >>> Change section 4.2.2 as follows; >>> >>> 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 /24. Organizations may qualify >>> for a larger initial allocation by documenting how the requested allocation >>> will be utilized within 24 months. >>> >>> Comments: >>> >>> Timetable for implementation: Immediate >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 11:37 PM, David Huberman <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> Thank you for the clarification. I think the staff practice is a >>> reasonable approach and I don’t think change is needed in policy for this. >>> >>> The updated Problem Statement reveals the real issue here - the one we need >>> to figure out as a community. What to do about all the requests each >>> month for IPv4 addresses under section 4? >>> >>> Is it time to pass a policy to direct staff to no longer accept section 4 >>> requests (except the ones they still fill like critical infrastructure)? I >>> wonder what the downside of such a policy would be - anyone know? >>> >>> >>> >>> On Dec 7, 2017, at 11:47 PM, Andrew Dul <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>>> It was noted to me by ARIN staff, that this updated problem statement >>>> doesn't accurately reflect ARIN's current practice. Below I suggest >>>> another updated problem statement. >>>> >>>> Problem Statement: >>>> >>>> It was noted at the ARIN 40 Policy Experience Report, that there is an >>>> inconsistency in the initial block size for ISPs. Section 4.2.2 notes that >>>> the initial ISP block size should be /21 whereas the initial block size in >>>> 8.5.4 is noted as "minimum transfer size" which is effectively a /24. This >>>> causes ISP organizations to be approved for different initial block size >>>> depending on if they first apply apply for a transfer directly under >>>> section 8 or if they apply for a block under section 4. This policy is >>>> intended to clarify this issue, by setting a consistent ISP initial IPv4 >>>> block size. It was noted that ARIN staff current operational practice is >>>> to allow qualified ISPs an initial /21 for Section 8 transfers when they >>>> first apply and are approved under section 4. If an organization applies >>>> under section 8 first they are initially qualified for a /24, larger >>>> allocations require additional documentation as noted in 8.5.5. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> =============================================== >>> David Farmer Email:[email protected] >>> <mailto:email%[email protected]> >>> Networking & Telecommunication Services >>> Office of Information Technology >>> University of Minnesota >>> 2218 University Ave SE >>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=2218+University+Ave+SE&entry=gmail&source=g> >>> Phone: 612-626-0815 <tel:(612)%20626-0815> >>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 <tel:(612)%20812-9952> >>> =============================================== >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> >>> Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you experience any >>> issues. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> =============================================== >> David Farmer Email:[email protected] >> <mailto:email%[email protected]> >> Networking & Telecommunication Services >> Office of Information Technology >> University of Minnesota >> 2218 University Ave SE >> <https://maps.google.com/?q=2218+University+Ave+SE&entry=gmail&source=g> >> Phone: 612-626-0815 <tel:(612)%20626-0815> >> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 <tel:(612)%20812-9952> >> =============================================== > > > > > -- > =============================================== > David Farmer Email:[email protected] > <mailto: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.
