With the current policy, as proposed by the AC's response, as long as you have less than a total of three /22s or less direct resources, you could get up to two additional /22s but not a /21 all at once. Note if you have no direct resources at all, you can get up to 5 /22s over a time of at least a year and a quarter plus the wait time on the list.
Smaller blocks over time seem fairer as it allows more entities a bit at the apple. We could allow /21s instead of /22s but then we should probably extend the time before you can get back on the list to 6 months. it would be good to hear from more people on these issues. On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 10:55 AM Christian Lefrançois < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > I agree with Michael Williams, I'm in the same situation, and on the > waiting > list for more than a year. I need a /21, to finally be free of upstream > providers fees for IPv4 addresses (lease). I'll gladly give back all > resources to ARIN in the eventuality of end of business, or if I can manage > to switch completely to IPv6. Not interested with the IPv4 black market. > > I'm in charge of a very small coop cable operator, my market is about 1900 > customers, we're hooking members as fast as possible, will reach (and > surpass) /22 in a few months. So, in my perspective, /21 should be the > maximum. > > Christian Lefrançois > Diffusion Fermont > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> De la part de > [email protected] > Envoyé : 10 mai 2019 18:33 > À : [email protected] > Objet : ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 167, Issue 80 > > Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://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: Fwd: Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM > 4.1.8. Unmet Requests (Scott Leibrand) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 15:32:17 -0700 > From: Scott Leibrand <[email protected]> > To: Michael Williams <[email protected]> > Cc: Kevin Blumberg <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory Council Recommendation > Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests > Message-ID: > <CAGkMwz5Bhp=SLVipZtx=fpu9ni2_uk_L3Tt1= > [email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > There are organizations of all sizes with direct unmet needs for address > blocks of all sizes up to /16 or larger. The waitlist is *not* intended to > meet all such requests: it simply can't be done, because the free pool is > empty, and there is way more demand than supply at a price of ~$0. Rather, > the waitlist is intended to make sure that returned/reclaimed addresses are > not stuck at ARIN, but rather distributed in a way that serves a useful > purpose. > > Organizations that need large blocks of address space should be going to > the > market to acquire them, and transferring them to meet their justified need. > Some organizations that need smaller blocks of addresses, but not urgently, > can try to get them via the waitlist. But the more larger allocations we > allow from reclaimed space, the fewer such organizations can be served, and > the longer they'll need to wait. So it makes sense to me to have a > relatively stringent maximum wait list allocation, particularly since that > also reduces the financial reward to fraudulent actors and/or those > attempting to game the system. > > So I support this policy, including the /22 maximum. > > -Scott (representing only myself) > > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 3:19 PM Michael Williams < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Representing ARIN member organisation GLEXI-3 *I do not support* the > > policy as written. Maximum wait list allocation should be at least a /21. > > We have a direct unmet need for a /21 right now. > > > > My argument is if an organisation receives an allocation from the wait > > list they should have to return that allocation directly to ARIN if > > not used. There should be no organisation to organisation transfer > > allowed for IP allocations received from the wait list. That?d > > eliminate all these crazy /16 allocation sales that we see now. > > > > Regards, > > > > Michael > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On 10 May 2019, at 17:36, Kevin Blumberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > David, > > > > > > > > I would rather see a limit or delay on the number of times an > > organization can go back to the waitlist than prevent organizations > > from getting any space from the wait list. > > > > > > > > Would I be more supportive if the number was larger? I don?t believe > > that is the right control mechanism, so no. > > > > > > > > Limiting the size to a /22 was a way of distributing fairly to as many > > organizations as possible and limiting the abuse vector. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Kevin > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *David > > Farmer > > *Sent:* Friday, May 10, 2019 4:44 PM > > *To:* Tom Pruitt <[email protected]> > > *Cc:* [email protected] > > *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory Council Recommendation > > Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests > > > > > > > > If /20 is too small is their another size you would propose? a /19 or > > a > > /18 maybe? Do you have an argument for why that is the right number? > > > > > > > > When the AC looked at this there was strong support for limiting the > > size of the organization that could qualify to ensure these resources > > went to smaller organizations. But there were varying opinions on what > > that size should be, /20 was just the option with the most support > amongst > the AC. > > > > > > > > This formulation also provides a limit on how many times an > > organization can go back to the waiting list, allowing smaller > > organizations more times to return to the waiting list, while limiting > > lager organization to fewer times to return to the waiting list. And > > organizations that already have more than a /20 must go to the market. > > > > > > > > A /20 limit, gives a new organization (with no resources) the > > opportunity receive up to 5 allocations from the waiting list if they > > got a /22 each time. > > > > A /19 limit would allow a new ISP up to 9 allocations if they got a > > /22 each time. > > > > A /18 limit would allow a new ISP up to 17 allocations if they got a > > /22 each time. > > > > > > > > Please realize the waiting list is primarily a mechanism to ensure > > resources are not stuck at ARIN, it should not be seen as a reliable > > means of obtaining resources. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 2:45 PM Tom Pruitt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > I do not support the new text, specifically the limit of a /20 per > > organization. > > > > > > > > The limiting of an organization to an aggregate of a /20 is a huge > > hinderance of the ability of a smaller ISP to compete. A smaller ISP > > that can win business on service and cost could lose that same business > due to > > simply recouping the IPv4 costs. Large ISPs will often give the IPs > away > > to win the business, and it costs them nothing as they received their > IPV4 > > space for free. Additionally, many smaller ISPs operate in outlying > areas > > where IPv6 adoption will likely be slow, which will also hinder their > > ability to push IPv6. I?m not sure at what point an organization > becomes > > ?large?, but the smaller organizations are the ones that will be hurt > > by this limit. > > > > > > > > What happens to organizations that are currently on the wait list that > > have an aggregate of a /20 or more? Do they still get a /22. Some of > > those organizations have been on the list for over a year. Assuming > they > > played by the rules and made decisions based on the assumption that > > they would get an allotment of IPv4 addresses, denying them any > > addresses after they have waited a year or more could be very > > detrimental to them. These policy changes and decisions affect the > > smaller entities greatly, and they need some clarity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Tom Pruitt > > > > Network Engineer > > > > Stratus Networks > > > > > > > > <image002.png> > > > > > > > > *From:* ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Andrew > > Dul > > *Sent:* Monday, May 6, 2019 4:09 PM > > *To:* [email protected] > > *Subject:* [arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding > > NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > I'd like to bring your attention to another issue that may have been > > lost in the flurry of other emails. We are currently in a 14 day > > feedback period for the AC's response to the Board's suspension of the > wait-list. > > Please note the following updated text for the wait-list. Your > > comments on this updated text are welcome. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > === > > > > If no such block is available, the organization will be provided the > > option to be placed on a waiting list of pre-qualified recipients, > > listing both the block size, for which the organization is qualified, > > which in the case of the waiting list shall not be larger than a /22, > > and the smallest block size acceptable to the organization. An > > organization may not be added to the waiting list if it already holds > > IPv4 resources amounting in aggregate to more than a /20 of address > > space. Resources received via section 4.1.8 may not be transferred within > 60 months of the issuance date. > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > > > *Subject: * > > > > [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. > > Unmet Requests > > > > *Date: * > > > > Mon, 29 Apr 2019 11:16:31 -0400 > > > > *From: * > > > > ARIN <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > > > > *To: * > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > Subject: > > > > At their 16 January Meeting, the Board of Trustees suspended issuance > > of number resources under NRPM section 4.1.8.2. (Fulfilling Unmet > > Needs), and referred NRPM section 4.1.8 to the ARIN Advisory Council > > for their recommendation. > > > > The Advisory Council has provided its recommendation, and per ARIN's > > Policy Development Process, the recommendation is hereby submitted to > > the Public Policy Mailing List for a community discussion period of 14 > > days, to conclude on 13 May. > > > > Once completed, the Board of Trustees will review the AC?s > > recommendation and the PPML discussion. > > > > The full text of the Advisory Council's recommendation is below. > > > > Board of Trustees meeting minutes are available at: > > > > https://www.arin.net/about/welcome/board/meetings/2019_0116/ > > > > For more details on the Policy Development Process, visit: > > > > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/ > > > > Regards, > > > > Sean Hopkins > > Policy Analyst > > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > > > > > Advisory Council recommendation: > > > > In accordance with section 10.2 of the ARIN Policy Development > > Process, the ARIN Advisory Council recommends the following actions to > > the Board of Trustees in response to the Board?s suspension of part of > > the operation of sections 4.1.8, 4.1.8.1 and 4.1.8.2 of the Numbering > Resource Policy Manual: > > > > Replace section 4.1.8 as follows, then reinstate the full operation of > > sections 4.1.8, 4.1.8.1 and 4.1.8.2 immediately. > > > > 4.1.8. Unmet Requests > > > > In the event that ARIN does not have a contiguous block of addresses > > of sufficient size to fulfill a qualified request, ARIN will provide > > the requesting organization with the option to specify the smallest > > block size they?d be willing to accept, equal to or larger than the > > applicable minimum size specified elsewhere in ARIN policy. If such a > > smaller block is available, ARIN will fulfill the request with the > > largest single block available that fulfills the request. > > > > If no such block is available, the organization will be provided the > > option to be placed on a waiting list of pre-qualified recipients, > > listing both the block size, for which the organization is qualified, > > which in the case of the waiting list shall not be larger than a /22, > > and the smallest block size acceptable to the organization. An > > organization may not be added to the waiting list if it already holds > > IPv4 resources amounting in aggregate to more than a /20 of address > > space. Resources received via section 4.1.8 may not be transferred within > 60 months of the issuance date. > > > > Repeated requests, in a manner that would circumvent 4.1.6, are not > > allowed: an organization may only receive one allocation, assignment, > > or transfer every 3 months, but ARIN, at its sole discretion, may > > waive this requirement if the requester can document a change in > > circumstances since their last request that could not have been > > reasonably foreseen at the time of the original request, and which now > justifies additional space. > > Qualified requesters whose request cannot be immediately met will also > > be advised of the availability of the transfer mechanism in section > > 8.3 as an alternative mechanism to obtain IPv4 addresses. > > _______________________________________________ > > 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: > > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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: > > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > =============================================== > > David Farmer 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 > > =============================================== > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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: > > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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: > > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > < > https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20190510/fd735392/at > tachment.html > <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20190510/fd735392/attachment.html> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > > ------------------------------ > > End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 167, Issue 80 > ****************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > 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: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. > -- =============================================== David Farmer 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 ===============================================
_______________________________________________ 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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
