Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-21: Reserved Pool Replenishment

[Fernando Frediani]

Hello David.
Thanks for the responses and for the numbers below.

I have to agree that 4.10 and 4.4 specially should always be treated 
with higher importance than the waiting-list.
My initial concern was that three years were maybe too much, but looking 
at these numbers it doesn't seem to. Obviously it will always depend on 
usage rate and I agree 4.10 is expected to increase reasonably over the 
next years so when this policy is triggered we will have a chance to 
review how the replenishment will work. On the other hand I have some 
concern about a possible deadlock or freeze in the waiting list as I see 
it as a minimum fair chance for newcomers to get some space the in a 
similar way all others had in the past.


So I think your proposal based on the numbers below make sense.

Regards
Fernando Frediani

On 27/12/2019 00:25, David Farmer wrote:


- With regards returning any other returned, reclaimed or revoke
resources that were not from the reserved pools to them, although
I see
the good intent of it I find it difficult to support it as we
don't know
numbers related to this at the present. The numbers of assignments
from
these reserved pools, the amount available and the forecast for it
are
necessary for this analysis.
Also it seems that three-year supply a long time for it to be
kept. If
the numbers mentioned point to the direction of the need of
replenishing
for these pools then the it may be necessary to review and discuss
the
supply time better. Without this information I cannot support this
part
of the proposal yet.


The idea of this policy is to have a default action of 
replenishing these reserved pools only when or if they get down to a 
three-year or less supply. Until then, other recovered resources go to 
the waiting list. Even then the idea is to only replenish them to or 
maintain a three year supply in the reserved pools, any 
resources recovered beyond that would still go to the waiting list.


Without this policy, when or if these reserved pools get low, we will 
just let them run out unless we have a consensus for a policy to 
change things at that time. However, I would like default action to be 
to replenish the reserved pools when or if they get low unless there 
is consensus at that time to let them run out, requiring policy action 
at that time if we want them to let them run out.


As for the current status of these pools; the following is from the 
ARIN 44 meeting report, at the beginning of November, in response to a 
question during the discussion of ARIN-2019-17;


John Sweeting:  John Sweeting, ARIN staff. I think I'm going to
answer Joe's question. So in the 4.10 pool, the IP pool -- sorry,
Cathy -- there are 15,727 /24s left. 657 have been used over the
time since it was implemented. And it puts about an average
between 10 and 15 a month.

On the 4.4, there's 123 issued. 389 left and about 1.5 per month.
So maybe 15, 18 a year.

4.10 pool;
   15,727 /24s left
   15 /24s a month
   This is more than 80 years worth at that rate of use, but I expect 
the rate of use will increase for this pool.


4.4 pool;
   389 /24s left
   1.5 /24s a month
   This is more than 20 years worth at that rate of use.

So this policy is not expected to have any effect for many years 
unless there is a dramatic increase in the use of these pools.


Regards
Fernando

On 24/12/2019 11:41, ARIN wrote:
>
> On 19 December 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
> "ARIN-prop-281: Reserved Pool Replenishment" as a Draft Policy.
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2019-21 is below and can be found at:
>
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_21/
>
> 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/participate/policy/pdp/
>
> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/
>
> Regards,
>
> Sean Hopkins
> Policy Analyst
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2019-21: Reserved Pool Replenishment
>
> Problem Statement:
>
> While the current level of resources in the reserve pools
created in
> Sections 4.4 and 4.10 presently seem more than adequate for their
> intended purposes. Nevertheless, even these well-resourced pools
will
> eventually run out. Therefore, we should make arrangements for

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-21: Reserved Pool Replenishment

[David Farmer]

I'm so glad you guys can read my mind. 

Thanks.

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 4:40 PM John Sweeting  wrote:

> David
>
> Those are the number of /24s per year. We knew what you really were asking
> for.
>
> Thanks
> John S
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 30, 2019, at 5:25 PM, David Farmer  wrote:
>
> 
> John,
>
> Those are the number of IPv4 micro allocations per year per type, I assume
> because that is what I asked for.
> However, thinking about it more, I probably should have asked for the
> number /24 equivalents per year per type.
> They are probably very close to the same numbers, but not necessarily the
> same if there were any larger than /24 allocations.
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 4:01 PM John Sweeting  wrote:
>
>> David - here you go
>>
>>
>> Year
>>
>> # IX
>>
>> # CI
>>
>> 2013
>>
>> 12
>>
>> 1
>>
>> 2014
>>
>> 21
>>
>> 0
>>
>> 2015
>>
>> 15
>>
>> 3
>>
>> 2016
>>
>> 7
>>
>> 2
>>
>> 2017
>>
>> 17
>>
>> 8
>>
>> 2018
>>
>> 19
>>
>> 0
>>
>> 2019
>>
>> 18
>>
>> 0
>>
>> Let us know if you need anything else.
>>
>> Thanks
>> John S.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Dec 30, 2019, at 4:25 PM, David Farmer  wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> ARIN staff, could we get a history of the number of IPv4 micro
>> allocations for each year, by type, going back to the implementation of
>> ARIN-2012-6?
>>
>>
> --
> ===
> David Farmer   Email:far...@umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SEPhone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===
>
>

-- 
===
David Farmer   Email:far...@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SEPhone: 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 (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-21: Reserved Pool Replenishment

[John Sweeting]

David

Those are the number of /24s per year. We knew what you really were asking for.

Thanks
John S

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 30, 2019, at 5:25 PM, David Farmer  wrote:

?
John,

Those are the number of IPv4 micro allocations per year per type, I assume 
because that is what I asked for.
However, thinking about it more, I probably should have asked for the number 
/24 equivalents per year per type.
They are probably very close to the same numbers, but not necessarily the same 
if there were any larger than /24 allocations.

Thanks.

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 4:01 PM John Sweeting 
mailto:jsweet...@arin.net>> wrote:
David - here you go


Year

# IX

# CI

2013

12

1

2014

21

0

2015

15

3

2016

7

2

2017

17

8

2018

19

0

2019

18

0


Let us know if you need anything else.

Thanks
John S.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 30, 2019, at 4:25 PM, David Farmer 
mailto:far...@umn.edu>> wrote:
...
ARIN staff, could we get a history of the number of IPv4 micro allocations for 
each year, by type, going back to the implementation of ARIN-2012-6?

--
===
David Farmer   Email:far...@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SEPhone: 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 (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-21: Reserved Pool Replenishment

[David Farmer]

John,

Those are the number of IPv4 micro allocations per year per type, I assume
because that is what I asked for.
However, thinking about it more, I probably should have asked for the
number /24 equivalents per year per type.
They are probably very close to the same numbers, but not necessarily the
same if there were any larger than /24 allocations.

Thanks.

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 4:01 PM John Sweeting  wrote:

> David - here you go
>
>
> Year
>
> # IX
>
> # CI
>
> 2013
>
> 12
>
> 1
>
> 2014
>
> 21
>
> 0
>
> 2015
>
> 15
>
> 3
>
> 2016
>
> 7
>
> 2
>
> 2017
>
> 17
>
> 8
>
> 2018
>
> 19
>
> 0
>
> 2019
>
> 18
>
> 0
>
> Let us know if you need anything else.
>
> Thanks
> John S.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 30, 2019, at 4:25 PM, David Farmer  wrote:
>
> ...
> ARIN staff, could we get a history of the number of IPv4 micro allocations
> for each year, by type, going back to the implementation of ARIN-2012-6?
>
>
-- 
===
David Farmer   Email:far...@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SEPhone: 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 (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-21: Reserved Pool Replenishment

[John Sweeting]

David - here you go


Year

# IX

# CI

2013

12

1

2014

21

0

2015

15

3

2016

7

2

2017

17

8

2018

19

0

2019

18

0


Let us know if you need anything else.

Thanks
John S.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 30, 2019, at 4:25 PM, David Farmer  wrote:

?

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 2:08 PM Martin Hannigan 
mailto:hanni...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 09:15 Joe Provo 
mailto:p...@rsuc.gweep.net>> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 01:00:15PM -0600, David Farmer wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 12:01 PM John Curran 
> mailto:jcur...@arin.net>> wrote:
[snip]
> > It is certainly the case that if you wanted ARIN to do something different
> > than that, the alternative would need to be clearly spelt out in policy ???
> > the highly obvious nature of returning blocks to their special pools
> > doesn???t necessarily require any specification in policy, unless it is 
> > being
> > done to avoid having such blocks inadvertently become subject to new policy
> > language.
> >
>
> If this policy doesn't gain consensus, I don't think it is necessary to put
> the first sentence into policy separately, I agree it is a fairly obvious
> thing to do. However, having it included in this policy makes it abundantly
> clear that the second sentence doesn't somehow apply the resources
> originally allocated from the 4.4 or 4.10 pools.  Further, the second
> sentence, as written, applies to "any other resource", and that phrasing
> wouldn't make much sense without the first sentence.

I support both in principle and the specific text, also notably
to provide the insurance as indicated by the tail end of John's
paragraph above.

Well, meh.  I don't think its totally necessary. Although I am neutral as to 
its disposition. However, if this is going to be considered seriously, it would 
be much better if the pools were rightsized and bracketed at three years ( as 
proposal suggests) from the start. There are some technical difficulties to be 
thought out there {filters, well known addresses, etc.} but should be doable.

The initial infra policies weren't intended to be permanent. They were intended 
to be a crutch for growth occurring at a higher rate at that time. IXP and TLD 
growth in the US has slowed compared to when the policy was enacted. Everyone 
that needed benefit should have already gotten it.

It would seem to make sense to clean up these pools all considered.

I'll agree that the intended longevity of the 4.4 pool was discussed at the 
time of its creation or at least when it was expanded and it was intended as a 
relatively short-term crutch for the IXP, TLDs and other critical 
infrastructure IPv4 micro allocation growth.  Personally, I wouldn't be opposed 
to right-sizing the 4.4 pool, with priority on other returned resources over 
the waiting list for replenishing this pool.

Maybe right-size it down to a 5 or 6 year supply, based on the last 5 or 6 
years of allocations, with the excess going to the waiting list

A little history; ARIN-2012-6 made an initial reservation of a /16 and 
ARIN-2014-21 increased the reservation to a /15.
https://www.arin.net/vault/policy/proposals/2012_6.html
https://www.arin.net/vault/policy/proposals/2014_21.html

ARIN staff, could we get a history of the number of IPv4 micro allocations for 
each year, by type, going back to the implementation of ARIN-2012-6?

However, I don't recall any such discussion regarding the 4.10 pool. Quite the 
contrary it was my impression the 4.10 pool was intended to be around for at 
least an extended period of time, if not indefinitely. In short, it was 
intended to ensure the availability of small amounts of IPv4 needed for IPv6 
deployment for a very long time. Therefore, I would be opposed to any kind of 
reduction to the 4.10 pool, other than by allocations as the policy intends, 
and if or when the pool starts to run low I would like to see it replenished.

A little history; ARIN-2008-5 is what became NRPM Section 4.10.
https://www.arin.net/vault/policy/proposals/2008_5.html

While I think the waiting list is an important tool to ensure resources are not 
stuck at ARIN, I think continued micro allocations (4.4) and allocations of 
IPv4 needed to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment (4.10) should have priority for 
returned resources over the waiting list.

Thanks.

--
===
David Farmer   Email:far...@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SEPhone: 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 (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if 

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-21: Reserved Pool Replenishment

[David Farmer]

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 2:08 PM Martin Hannigan  wrote:

>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 09:15 Joe Provo  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 01:00:15PM -0600, David Farmer wrote:
>> > On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 12:01 PM John Curran  wrote:
>> [snip]
>> > > It is certainly the case that if you wanted ARIN to do something
>> different
>> > > than that, the alternative would need to be clearly spelt out in
>> policy ???
>> > > the highly obvious nature of returning blocks to their special pools
>> > > doesn???t necessarily require any specification in policy, unless it
>> is being
>> > > done to avoid having such blocks inadvertently become subject to new
>> policy
>> > > language.
>> > >
>> >
>> > If this policy doesn't gain consensus, I don't think it is necessary to
>> put
>> > the first sentence into policy separately, I agree it is a fairly
>> obvious
>> > thing to do. However, having it included in this policy makes it
>> abundantly
>> > clear that the second sentence doesn't somehow apply the resources
>> > originally allocated from the 4.4 or 4.10 pools.  Further, the second
>> > sentence, as written, applies to "any other resource", and that phrasing
>> > wouldn't make much sense without the first sentence.
>>
>> I support both in principle and the specific text, also notably
>> to provide the insurance as indicated by the tail end of John's
>> paragraph above.
>
>
> Well, meh.  I don’t think its totally necessary. Although I am neutral as
> to its disposition. However, if this is going to be considered seriously,
> it would be much better if the pools were rightsized and bracketed at three
> years ( as proposal suggests) from the start. There are some technical
> difficulties to be thought out there {filters, well known addresses, etc.}
> but should be doable.
>
> The initial infra policies weren’t intended to be permanent. They were
> intended to be a crutch for growth occurring at a higher rate at that time.
> IXP and TLD growth in the US has slowed compared to when the policy was
> enacted. Everyone that needed benefit should have already gotten it.
>
> It would seem to make sense to clean up these pools all considered.
>

I'll agree that the intended longevity of the 4.4 pool was discussed at the
time of its creation or at least when it was expanded and it was intended
as a relatively short-term crutch for the IXP, TLDs and other critical
infrastructure IPv4 micro allocation growth.  Personally, I wouldn't be
opposed to right-sizing the 4.4 pool, with priority on other returned
resources over the waiting list for replenishing this pool.

Maybe right-size it down to a 5 or 6 year supply, based on the last 5 or 6
years of allocations, with the excess going to the waiting list

A little history; ARIN-2012-6 made an initial reservation of a /16 and
ARIN-2014-21 increased the reservation to a /15.
https://www.arin.net/vault/policy/proposals/2012_6.html
https://www.arin.net/vault/policy/proposals/2014_21.html

ARIN staff, could we get a history of the number of IPv4 micro allocations
for each year, by type, going back to the implementation of ARIN-2012-6?

However, I don't recall any such discussion regarding the 4.10 pool. Quite
the contrary it was my impression the 4.10 pool was intended to be around
for at least an extended period of time, if not indefinitely. In short, it
was intended to ensure the availability of small amounts of IPv4 needed for
IPv6 deployment for a very long time. Therefore, I would be opposed to any
kind of reduction to the 4.10 pool, other than by allocations as the policy
intends, and if or when the pool starts to run low I would like to see it
replenished.

A little history; ARIN-2008-5 is what became NRPM Section 4.10.
https://www.arin.net/vault/policy/proposals/2008_5.html

While I think the waiting list is an important tool to ensure resources are
not stuck at ARIN, I think continued micro allocations (4.4) and
allocations of IPv4 needed to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment (4.10) should have
priority for returned resources over the waiting list.

Thanks.

-- 
===
David Farmer   Email:far...@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SEPhone: 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 (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-21: Reserved Pool Replenishment

[Martin Hannigan]

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 09:15 Joe Provo  wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 01:00:15PM -0600, David Farmer wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 12:01 PM John Curran  wrote:
> [snip]
> > > It is certainly the case that if you wanted ARIN to do something
> different
> > > than that, the alternative would need to be clearly spelt out in
> policy ???
> > > the highly obvious nature of returning blocks to their special pools
> > > doesn???t necessarily require any specification in policy, unless it
> is being
> > > done to avoid having such blocks inadvertently become subject to new
> policy
> > > language.
> > >
> >
> > If this policy doesn't gain consensus, I don't think it is necessary to
> put
> > the first sentence into policy separately, I agree it is a fairly obvious
> > thing to do. However, having it included in this policy makes it
> abundantly
> > clear that the second sentence doesn't somehow apply the resources
> > originally allocated from the 4.4 or 4.10 pools.  Further, the second
> > sentence, as written, applies to "any other resource", and that phrasing
> > wouldn't make much sense without the first sentence.
>
> I support both in principle and the specific text, also notably
> to provide the insurance as indicated by the tail end of John's
> paragraph above.



Well, meh.  I don’t think its totally necessary. Although I am neutral as
to its disposition. However, if this is going to be considered seriously,
it would be much better if the pools were rightsized and bracketed at three
years ( as proposal suggests) from the start. There are some technical
difficulties to be thought out there {filters, well known addresses, etc.}
but should be doable.

The initial infra policies weren’t intended to be permanent. They were
intended to be a crutch for growth occurring at a higher rate at that time.
IXP and TLD growth in the US has slowed compared to when the policy was
enacted. Everyone that needed benefit should have already gotten it.

It would seem to make sense to clean up these pools all considered.

$0.02

Warm regards,

-M<


[ clip ]*


* stole that from you in the late 80’s early 90’s. :-)
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-21: Reserved Pool Replenishment

[Joe Provo]

On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 01:00:15PM -0600, David Farmer wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 12:01 PM John Curran  wrote:
[snip]
> > It is certainly the case that if you wanted ARIN to do something different
> > than that, the alternative would need to be clearly spelt out in policy ???
> > the highly obvious nature of returning blocks to their special pools
> > doesn???t necessarily require any specification in policy, unless it is 
> > being
> > done to avoid having such blocks inadvertently become subject to new policy
> > language.
> >
> 
> If this policy doesn't gain consensus, I don't think it is necessary to put
> the first sentence into policy separately, I agree it is a fairly obvious
> thing to do. However, having it included in this policy makes it abundantly
> clear that the second sentence doesn't somehow apply the resources
> originally allocated from the 4.4 or 4.10 pools.  Further, the second
> sentence, as written, applies to "any other resource", and that phrasing
> wouldn't make much sense without the first sentence.
 
I support both in principle and the specific text, also notably 
to provide the insurance as indicated by the tail end of John's 
paragraph above.

-- 
Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header.
Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling 
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.