Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks

On Sep 30, 2015, at 12:40 PM, Dani Roisman > wrote: That’s just billing buckets then, not really based on actual transfer activity. Maybe it will help to look at more relevant data? ARIN staff watching - could you point me to any published

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks

On Sep 30, 2015, at 1:15 PM, John Curran > wrote: On Sep 30, 2015, at 12:40 PM, Dani Roisman > wrote: That’s just billing buckets then, not really based on actual transfer activity. Maybe it will

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks

Dani, Do you have a particular reason to want to dive into the stats? I looked at them but see no way to easily separate the requests between those that would qualify for this (those that have a no or a very small IP allocation), and those of larger entities. I did run out the transfers and

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks

Where did the 9% come from? Should that not be 24%? Either way, if we were talking about houses then many of us realize that if the number of bidders on property who had the cash (but not the need) were 10 or 25% larger, then you might expect the value of the property to be higher. The same is

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks

Hi Bill, I'm interested to learn how you came up with the below proposed netblock sizes "/20 if a ISP or /22 for an end user" ? Is there data behind that? If not, does it make sense to ask ARIN to supply data regarding sizes of transfers which have occurred in the past 12 - 18 months?

Re: [arin-ppml] 11 Proposals Under Consideration

Dave Farmer asked for opinions on the other proposals. -9 has been flogged close to death, here are my opinions on five of the others. > -Original Message- > From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On > Behalf Of David Farmer > Sent: 25 September 2015 2:14 PM

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks

Dani, In fairness to Bill, I think he may also have chosen them because I suggested that those would be boundaries I would consider livable. I believe they represent a good size to guarantee that small organizations are not shut out of the transfer market based on size, but still ensure that

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks

Based on the ARIN fee table of ISP classification: /20 is the max allocation size of a X-Small ISP /22 is the max allocation size of a XX-Small End User. So there is a slight bias towards small ISPs, but they are in less of a position to leverage NAT. Thanks, Bill Buhler From: Dani Roisman

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks

That's just billing buckets then, not really based on actual transfer activity. Maybe it will help to look at more relevant data? ARIN staff watching - could you point me to any published statistics for transfers over the past 18 months, or if not could you generate them and share? I'm