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

[Martin Hannigan]

Let's fix the math I broke. Mea culpa. Inline. I think I got it right this
time. :)

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 11:46 AM Martin Hannigan  wrote:

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

>>> [ clip ]
>
>
[ clip ]

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
>>
>>
> Let's assume the pool size is a /15 and use an average rate of allocation
> IXP+CI of 18 /24 per year.
>
> YEAR  0 - YEAR 5 = 105 /24's (generous as I measured beginning of period
> to end of period)
>

Corrected, year 0 to 5 and BOP to EOP = 105 /24's. However, apples to
apples occurs when comparing /24's to /24's. :)

[ clip broken math, insert good math]

A /16 would probably be forgiving and return a /16. Noise. But worthy in
the current context.


  BOP / 24 EOP /24
YR 0
*512* *494*

*YR 1* *494* *477*
*YR 2* *477* *459*
*YR 3* *459* *442*
*YR 4* *442* *424*

*YR 5 <---* *424*
*407 *
YR 6 407 389
YR 7 389 371
YR 8 371 354
YR 9 354 336
YR 10 336 319
YR 11 319 301
YR 12 301 284
YR 13 284 266
YR 14 266 248


The 4.10 pool needs more run rate IMHO. However, a thumb in the air would
suggest that it could be cut in half. Food for thought.

YMMV,

-M<






>> 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

[John Sweeting]

On 1/3/20, 12:25 PM, "ARIN-PPML on behalf of Owen DeLong" 
 wrote:



> On Dec 26, 2019, at 16:38 , Fernando Frediani  
wrote:
> 
> There are two points to analyze in this proposal:
> 
> - Any returned, reclaimed or revoked addresses that belong originally to 
the reserved pools to be returned to them. I think this was pretty obvious and 
was already done this way and wouldn't be necessary to state it again. Could 
the author show that this is not the way it is currently done then I am fine to 
support this part.

Whether it is done this way or not, would be a question for the RSHD and/or 
John Sweeting. I honestly don’t know the current practice.

(JS)>>Yes, this is the way they are handled in current policy. All special 
reserved pool IPv4 addresses are returned to the pool they are reserved for. 

However, codifying it in policy (it is not currently) is good either way as 
it provides clarity and ensures that it is done that way unless the community 
makes a deliberate change to the policy.

> - With regards returning any other returned, reclaimed or revoked 
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.

The beauty of the way this proposal is structured is that it only 
replenishes those pools up to a historical 3-year supply.

So, for example, if the last three years saw the distribution of 25, 60, 
and 80 /24 equivalents, then a 3-year supply would be considered to be 165 /24 
equivalents. As the sliding three-year look-back window changes, so would the 
amount of supply required to consider the pool “full”.

> 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 information is probably available in the statistics on the ARIN web 
site. However, I agree that having staff provide more details would be useful 
in informing the discussion here. I will make a formal request.

(JS)>>The stats for 4.4. 

Year# IX # CI

201312  1
201421  0
201515  3
20167   2
201717  8
201819  0
201918  0

The stats for 4.10

201512
201662
2017139
2018230
2019260



Owen

> 
> 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 their replenishment, if or when 
necessary.
>> 
>> Policy Statement:
>> 
>> Add a new subsection in IPv4 General Principles, Section 4.1;
>> 
>> 4.1.X Reserved Pool Replenishment
>> 
>> Any resources allocated from a reserved pool created in Sections 4.4 or 
4.10, or any other reserved pools created in the future, that are returned, 
reclaimed, or revoked will be returned to the reserved pool they were 
originally allocated from, regardless of the current level of each pool. 
Further, any other resources returned, reclaimed, or revoked will be 
prioritized for the replenishment of any reserved pool that falls below a 
running three-year supply, which is based on the previous three 

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

[Owen DeLong]

> On Dec 26, 2019, at 16:38 , Fernando Frediani  wrote:
> 
> There are two points to analyze in this proposal:
> 
> - Any returned, reclaimed or revoked addresses that belong originally to the 
> reserved pools to be returned to them. I think this was pretty obvious and 
> was already done this way and wouldn't be necessary to state it again. Could 
> the author show that this is not the way it is currently done then I am fine 
> to support this part.

Whether it is done this way or not, would be a question for the RSHD and/or 
John Sweeting. I honestly don’t know the current practice.

However, codifying it in policy (it is not currently) is good either way as it 
provides clarity and ensures that it is done that way unless the community 
makes a deliberate change to the policy.

> - With regards returning any other returned, reclaimed or revoked 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.

The beauty of the way this proposal is structured is that it only replenishes 
those pools up to a historical 3-year supply.

So, for example, if the last three years saw the distribution of 25, 60, and 80 
/24 equivalents, then a 3-year supply would be considered to be 165 /24 
equivalents. As the sliding three-year look-back window changes, so would the 
amount of supply required to consider the pool “full”.

> 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 information is probably available in the statistics on the ARIN web site. 
However, I agree that having staff provide more details would be useful in 
informing the discussion here. I will make a formal request.

Owen

> 
> 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 their replenishment, if or 
>> when necessary.
>> 
>> Policy Statement:
>> 
>> Add a new subsection in IPv4 General Principles, Section 4.1;
>> 
>> 4.1.X Reserved Pool Replenishment
>> 
>> Any resources allocated from a reserved pool created in Sections 4.4 or 
>> 4.10, or any other reserved pools created in the future, that are returned, 
>> reclaimed, or revoked will be returned to the reserved pool they were 
>> originally allocated from, regardless of the current level of each pool. 
>> Further, any other resources returned, reclaimed, or revoked will be 
>> prioritized for the replenishment of any reserved pool that falls below a 
>> running three-year supply, which is based on the previous three years of 
>> allocations from each pool.
>> 
>> Timetable for Implementation: Immediate
>> 
>> Anything Else:
>> 
>> ARIN Staff should regularly report on the levels and projected run-times for 
>> each reserved pool and immediately report when any reserved pool falls below 
>> a three-year running supply.
>> 
>> A three-year running supply was chosen to provide the ARIN Policy Community 
>> adequate time to react through policy, as deemed appropriate at that time, 
>> to an imminent run out event for one of the reserved pools.
>> ___
>> ARIN-PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy 

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

[Martin Hannigan]

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

>
> 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]
>>>
>> [ clip ]


> 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
>
>
Let's assume the pool size is a /15 and use an average rate of allocation
IXP+CI of 18 /24 per year.

YEAR  0 - YEAR 5 = 105 /24's (generous as I measured beginning of period to
end of period)

   *  BOP  EOP*
YR 0 131,072 131,054
YR 1 131,054 131,037
YR 2 131,037 131,019
YR 3 131,019 131,002
YR 4 131,002 130,984
YR 5 130,984 130,967
YR 6 130,967 130,949
YR 7 130,949 130,931
YR 8 130,931 130,914
YR 9 130,914 130,896
YR 10 130,896 130,879
YR 11 130,879 130,861
YR 12 130,861 130,844
YR 13 130,844 130,826
YR 14 130,826 130,808

If we were going to bracket at five years we'd need a total of 88 /24's.
Which doesn't include returns. Although there probably aren't any. See
distraction below.

IIRC correctly the motivation on the CI pool was a pending flood of new
gTLD's. It was the period where the root was busted wide open for the wild
west of TLD's e,g. ".cakeisgood". Which happened on paper (and cash) but
didn't materialize numbers wise. It was a good insurance policy. Which
seems less needed now. Same for IXPs.

// unrelated distraction //

Micro allocation for 206.51.35.0

Discovered open port 1723/tcp on 206.51.35.6

Discovered open port 1723/tcp on 206.51.35.25

Discovered open port 1723/tcp on 206.51.35.33

Discovered open port 1723/tcp on 206.51.35.7


Hm. Something is not right there. What could it be?


https://pastebin.com/c0QYF5QZ


Cheers,


-M<









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

[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.

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

[David Farmer]

On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 12:01 PM John Curran  wrote:

> On 26 Dec 2019, at 10:25 PM, David Farmer  wrote:
>
>
> Responses are inline;
>
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 6:38 PM Fernando Frediani 
> wrote:
>
>> There are two points to analyze in this proposal:
>>
>> - Any returned, reclaimed or revoked addresses that belong originally to
>> the reserved pools to be returned to them. I think this was pretty
>> obvious and was already done this way and wouldn't be necessary to state
>> it again. Could the author show that this is not the way it is currently
>> done then I am fine to support this part.
>>
>
> I'm not sure how ARIN staff does this now. However, if this is what we
> want, it is usually better for it to be clearly stated in the policy.
>
>
> Blocks designated as special use are put back in whichever pool they
> belong to, 4.4 or 4.10, respectively.
>

Thanks for clarifying.


> 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.

Thanks.


> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>
>
>

-- 
===
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 Curran]

On 26 Dec 2019, at 10:25 PM, David Farmer 
mailto:far...@umn.edu>> wrote:

Responses are inline;

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 6:38 PM Fernando Frediani 
mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
There are two points to analyze in this proposal:

- Any returned, reclaimed or revoked addresses that belong originally to
the reserved pools to be returned to them. I think this was pretty
obvious and was already done this way and wouldn't be necessary to state
it again. Could the author show that this is not the way it is currently
done then I am fine to support this part.

I'm not sure how ARIN staff does this now. However, if this is what we want, it 
is usually better for it to be clearly stated in the policy.

Blocks designated as special use are put back in whichever pool they belong to, 
4.4 or 4.10, respectively.

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.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers


___
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]

Responses are inline;

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 6:38 PM Fernando Frediani 
wrote:

> There are two points to analyze in this proposal:
>
> - Any returned, reclaimed or revoked addresses that belong originally to
> the reserved pools to be returned to them. I think this was pretty
> obvious and was already done this way and wouldn't be necessary to state
> it again. Could the author show that this is not the way it is currently
> done then I am fine to support this part.
>

I'm not sure how ARIN staff does this now. However, if this is what we
want, it is usually better for it to be clearly stated in the policy.


> - 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 their
> > replenishment, if or when necessary.
> >
> > Policy Statement:
> >
> > Add a new subsection in IPv4 General Principles, Section 4.1;
> >
> > 4.1.X Reserved Pool Replenishment
> >
> > Any resources allocated from a reserved pool created in Sections 4.4
> > or 4.10, or any other reserved pools created in the future, that are
> > returned, reclaimed, or revoked will be returned to the reserved pool
> > they were originally allocated from, 

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

[Michael B. Williams via ARIN-PPML]

Agreed. Support this for the time being.

--

*Michael B. Williams*
Glexia, Inc. - An IT Company
USA Direct: +1 978 477 6797
USA Toll Free: +1 800 675 0297 x101
AUS Direct: +61 3 8594 2265
AUS Toll Free: +61 1800 931 724 x101
Fax: +1.815-301-5570
michael.willi...@glexia.com
https://www.glexia.com/
https://www.glexia.com.au/

*Legal Notice:*
The information in this electronic mail message is the sender's
confidential business and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely
for the addressee(s). Access to this internet electronic mail message by
anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any
disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be
taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful.



On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 8:39 PM Gary Buhrmaster 
wrote:

> Support.  At some future point it may make sense to
> eliminate (or reduce the size of) the reserved pools,
> but until we have consensus as to how to right-size
> those pools, they should have priority to top them
> off.
> ___
> 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.
>
___
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

[Gary Buhrmaster]

Support.  At some future point it may make sense to
eliminate (or reduce the size of) the reserved pools,
but until we have consensus as to how to right-size
those pools, they should have priority to top them
off.
___
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

[Fernando Frediani]

There are two points to analyze in this proposal:

- Any returned, reclaimed or revoked addresses that belong originally to 
the reserved pools to be returned to them. I think this was pretty 
obvious and was already done this way and wouldn't be necessary to state 
it again. Could the author show that this is not the way it is currently 
done then I am fine to support this part.


- With regards returning any other returned, reclaimed or revoked 
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.


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 their 
replenishment, if or when necessary.


Policy Statement:

Add a new subsection in IPv4 General Principles, Section 4.1;

4.1.X Reserved Pool Replenishment

Any resources allocated from a reserved pool created in Sections 4.4 
or 4.10, or any other reserved pools created in the future, that are 
returned, reclaimed, or revoked will be returned to the reserved pool 
they were originally allocated from, regardless of the current level 
of each pool. Further, any other resources returned, reclaimed, or 
revoked will be prioritized for the replenishment of any reserved pool 
that falls below a running three-year supply, which is based on the 
previous three years of allocations from each pool.


Timetable for Implementation: Immediate

Anything Else:

ARIN Staff should regularly report on the levels and projected 
run-times for each reserved pool and immediately report when any 
reserved pool falls below a three-year running supply.


A three-year running supply was chosen to provide the ARIN Policy 
Community adequate time to react through policy, as deemed appropriate 
at that time, to an imminent run out event for one of the reserved pools.

___
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.

___
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

[Scott Leibrand]

Support. In the last sentence I would remove the words “which is” for clarity.

Scott

> On Dec 24, 2019, at 4:42 AM, 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 their replenishment, if or when 
> necessary.
> 
> Policy Statement:
> 
> Add a new subsection in IPv4 General Principles, Section 4.1;
> 
> 4.1.X Reserved Pool Replenishment
> 
> Any resources allocated from a reserved pool created in Sections 4.4 or 4.10, 
> or any other reserved pools created in the future, that are returned, 
> reclaimed, or revoked will be returned to the reserved pool they were 
> originally allocated from, regardless of the current level of each pool. 
> Further, any other resources returned, reclaimed, or revoked will be 
> prioritized for the replenishment of any reserved pool that falls below a 
> running three-year supply, which is based on the previous three years of 
> allocations from each pool.
> 
> Timetable for Implementation: Immediate
> 
> Anything Else:
> 
> ARIN Staff should regularly report on the levels and projected run-times for 
> each reserved pool and immediately report when any reserved pool falls below 
> a three-year running supply.
> 
> A three-year running supply was chosen to provide the ARIN Policy Community 
> adequate time to react through policy, as deemed appropriate at that time, to 
> an imminent run out event for one of the reserved pools.
> ___
> 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.
___
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.