ARIN-PPML Message

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

Scott Leibrand wrote:
> 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?)

I think it is fine the way it is, maybe just add it to the FAQ you 
mention below.

>> 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.

But if you had a request on the waiting list could you make a separate 
qualifying request to this pool.

Because of how restricted those resources are, I was thinking maybe you 
should be able to get resources from this special pool, if the use 
qualifies, without losing a spot on the waiting list for less restricted 
resources.

And like you say, it should be a while before this policy is necessary 
for this special pool.

>> 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."

DOH! Sorry, I don't know how I missed that, yes you have this handled.

>> 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.

That seems reasonable to me

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

Yea, an FAQ would be fine, that way it is clear in the record what the 
intent is.

> Thanks,
> Scott


-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================