ARIN-PPML Message

[arin-ppml] Proposal 97. Waiting List for Unmet IPv4 Requests

On 12/18/2009 12:15 PM, David Farmer wrote:
> Scott,
>
> This is looking good;
>
> But I have some questions and comments; 

Thanks, the more feedback the better.

> 1. The effect of 2009-8, if implemented by the Board, is to allow 
> transfers to be up to a 12 month supply of resources and up to a 3 
> month supply for resource from the ARIN free pool.  Does that jive 
> with your intent for this policy?  Maybe you should mention this in 
> the rational.

Correct.  After we get to the last /8, you can request up to a 3-month 
supply from the free pool, but only every 3 months unless you can 
document an unforeseen change in circumstances since your last request.  
However, if you get the space via transfer, you can get a block big 
enough for 12 month's need, and if you end up using it up faster, you 
can submit another request after 3 months.

(Does anyone have feedback on the exact numbers here?  Is having to wait 
3 months between 3-month-supply requests too long?  Should I make it 1 
or 2 months between requests instead?)

>
> 2. I believe the way this is stated that an organization with Multiple 
> Discrete Networks is only entitled to a single allocation or 
> assignment per organization, not per network.  Maybe you should 
> mention this in the rational too.  Does the fact that they might be 
> able to use multiple smaller blocks make any difference?
>
> 3. Should resources received via section 4.10 "Dedicated IPv4 block to 
> facilitate IPv6 Deployment" be exempted from these processes and limits?

I believe that the numbered requirements under 4.10 are all more strict 
than those in proposal 97.  As a result, I think the only effect of 
proposal 97 on 4.10 would be that if we ever burn through all the /24's 
in the reserved /10, we would use the same waiting list mechanism to 
deal with further requests after that.  I think that's far enough out 
that policy will likely change first, though.

>
> 4. If I were on the waiting list, and subsequently received a transfer 
> via 8.3, would I be removed from the waiting list?

Yes.

>
> I believe that is implied, in the following statement from 4.1.8; "an 
> organization may only receive one allocation, assignment, or transfer 
> every 3 months";
>
> But, it might be better if the removal from the waiting list were more 
> explicit.

In 4.1.8.2, it says that "Any requests met through a transfer will be 
considered fulfilled and removed from the waiting list."

>
> So to deal with #3 and #4, how about adding an additional sentence to 
> the end of 4.1.8.1 "Waiting list".
>
> "At the time of the allocation, assignment, or transfer of any amount 
> IPv4 resources, except via section 4.10, an organization's request 
> will be removed from the waiting list."
>
> 5. I believe M&A transfers are intended to be included a receipt of 
> resources that would remove you from the waiting list, implied in the 
> original text and more explicit with the text above. Maybe you should 
> mention this in the rational too.

I think that depends on how the M&A is justified.  If you acquire a 
company that is already efficiently utilizing all its IP space, I don't 
think that would count toward fulfilling an outstanding need that you 
have a request on the waiting list for.  However, if your justification 
for keeping the space held by the acquired company is that you plan to 
use it for new stuff, then that would meet an outstanding need, and a 
request for that same need would be considered fulfilled and removed 
from the waiting list.

Maybe I'll create a FAQ in the rationale with some of these questions 
and answers...

Thanks,
Scott