From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Aug 5 00:53:03 2016 From: narten at us.ibm.com (narten at us.ibm.com) Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2016 00:53:03 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201608050453.u754r4WN022597@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 2 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Aug 5 00:53:03 EDT 2016 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 50.00% | 1 | 58.71% | 12688 | andrew.dul at quark.net 50.00% | 1 | 41.29% | 8925 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 2 |100.00% | 21613 | Total From owen at delong.com Mon Aug 8 22:59:37 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 19:59:37 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Please express support for 2016-6 Eliminate HD Ratio from NRPM Message-ID: <1CC915F1-FD2F-40C5-8C72-947DCD3EA007@delong.com> Speaking as the proposal author and not in my role as a member of the AC: HD Ratio has become a vestigial element in ARIN policy with one exception. It still applies to the never-actually-used community networks policy. Unfortunately, the presence of HD Ratio in the policy manual is, in fact, creating confusion, including a member of ARIN staff using it in presentations. I would like to see this cleaned up sooner rather than later in the interests of not creating even more confusion around IPv6 deployment. As such, I?m hoping that this will be able to go to the October meeting as a Recommended Draft Policy rather than as a Draft which would require it to again go to another ARIN meeting or PPC as an RDP. So far, there?s been no real discussion of the policy and one comment in support from a fellow AC member. It would be very helpful in moving this forward if the community would express their opinions on the policy either in favor or in opposition. Thank you. Owen From farmer at umn.edu Mon Aug 8 23:13:58 2016 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 22:13:58 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM In-Reply-To: <579763D9.7010005@arin.net> References: <579763D9.7010005@arin.net> Message-ID: As AC Shepherd, I haven't seen much discussions of this one; I think the Elimination of HD-Ratio is probably fairly non-controversial itself. However, in regards to the Community Networks section, I see three high-level alternatives for the community to consider; 1. Rewrite the Community Networks section to not reference HD-Ratio, as the Draft Policy suggests; 2. Replace the Community Networks section with a generic small ISP policy allowing allocations of /40 (qualifying for xxx-small IPv6 fee category); 3. Remove the Community Networks section all together; It doesn't seem to have been used since it was adopted, see Dan Alexander's Policy Simplification presentation, slide #4. If we go this way, 2.11 should be deleted also; https://www.arin.net/vault/participate/meetings/reports/ ARIN_37/PDF/tuesday/alexander_simplification.pdf#page=4 I think a rewrite in line with the original intent for the Community Networks section is the proper place to start the conversation, and I think this Draft Policy does a good job doing that. However since we need to touch the Community Networks section to accomplish the Elimination of HD-Ratio, I'd like to hear from some Community Networks to better understand why the current policy is not being used. Is there some problem with it? Is it just not necessary? Was it too early? Are Community Networks just being requested and recorded as other end user requests? Personally, I like the idea of the Community Networks policy, but since no one seems to be using it, maybe we should look at why as part of any rewrite. Comments please, even if you simply support the policy as written. Also, if you know someone involved in operating a Community Network please forward this to them, I'd really like to hear from them even if they don't want to post to PPML themselves. Thanks. On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 8:21 AM, ARIN wrote: > On 21 July 2016, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following > Proposal to Draft Policy status: > > ARIN-prop-231: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM > > This Draft Policy has been numbered and titled: > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6 is below and can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_6.html > > 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/policy/pdp.html > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > ########## > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM > > Date: 26 July 2016 > > Problem Statement: > > The HD-Ratio has become an anachronism in the NRPM and some of the > vestigial references to it create confusion about recommended prefix sizes > for IPv6 resulting in a belief in the community that ARIN endorses the idea > of /56s as a unit of measure in IPv6 assignments. While there are members > of the community that believe a /56 is a reasonable choice, ARIN policy has > always allowed and still supports /48 prefixes for any and all end-sites > without need for further justification. More restrictive choices are still > permitted under policy as well. This proposal does not change that, but it > attempts to eliminate some possible confusion. > > The last remaining vestigial references to HD-Ratio are contained in the > community networks policy (Section 6.5.9). This policy seeks to replace > 6.5.9 with new text incorporating end user policy by reference (roughly > equivalent to the original intent of 6.5.9 prior to the more recent changes > to end-user policy). While this contains a substantial rewrite to the > Community Networks policy, it will not have any negative impact on > community networks. It may increase the amount of IPv6 space a community > network could receive due to the change from HD-Ratio, but not more than > any other similar sized end-user would receive under existing policy. > > Policy statement: > > Replace section 6.5.9 in its entirety as follows: > > 6.5.9 Community Network Assignments > > While community networks would normally be considered to be ISP type > organizations under existing ARIN criteria, they tend to operate on much > tighter budgets and often depend on volunteer labor. As a result, they tend > to be much smaller and more communal in their organization rather than > provider/customer relationships of commercial ISPs. This section seeks to > provide policy that is more friendly to those environments by allowing them > to use end-user criteria. 6.5.9.1 Qualification Criteria > > To qualify under this section, a community network must demonstrate to > ARIN?s satisfaction that it meets the definition of a community network > under section 2.11 of the NRPM. 6.5.9.2 Receiving Resources > > Once qualified under this section, a community network shall be treated as > an end-user assignment for all ARIN purposes (both policy and fee > structure) unless or until the board adopts a specific more favorable fee > structure for community networks. > > Community networks shall be eligible under this section only for IPv6 > resources and the application process and use of those resources shall be > governed by the existing end-user policy contained in section 6.5.8 et. seq. > > Community networks seeking other resources shall remain subject to the > policies governing those resources independent of their election to use > this policy for IPv6 resources. > > Delete section 2.8 ? This section is non-operative and conflicts with the > definitions of utilization contained in current policies. > > Delete section 2.9 ? This section is no longer operative. > > Delete section 6.7 ? This section is no longer applicable. > > Comments: > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > > Anything else > > Originally, I thought this would be an editorial change as the HD-Ratio > has been unused for several years. > > However, further research revealed that it is still referenced in the > Community Networks policy which has also gone unused since its inception. > As a result, I am going to attempt to simultaneously simplify the Community > Networks policy while preserving its intent and eliminate the HD-Ratio from > the NRPM. > > I realize that fees are out of scope for policy, however, in this case, we > are not setting fees. We are addressing in policy which fee structure the > given policy should operate under in a manner which does not constrain > board action on actual fees. > > This is an attempt to preserve the original intent of the Community > networks policy in a way that may make it less vestigial. > > Alternatively, we could simply delete Section 6.5.9 if that is preferred. > The primary goal here is to get rid of vestigial reference to HD-Ratio > rather than to get wrapped around the axle on community networks. > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- =============================================== 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 =============================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lar at mwtcorp.net Tue Aug 9 16:15:39 2016 From: lar at mwtcorp.net (Larry Ash) Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2016 14:15:39 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Please express support for 2016-6 Eliminate HD Ratio from NRPM In-Reply-To: <1CC915F1-FD2F-40C5-8C72-947DCD3EA007@delong.com> References: <1CC915F1-FD2F-40C5-8C72-947DCD3EA007@delong.com> Message-ID: +1 Seems reasonable to me. Larry Ash Owen DeLong wrote: > Speaking as the proposal author and not in my role as a member of the AC: > > > HD Ratio has become a vestigial element in ARIN policy with one exception. > > It still applies to the never-actually-used community networks policy. > > Unfortunately, the presence of HD Ratio in the policy manual is, in fact, creating confusion, > including a member of ARIN staff using it in presentations. > > I would like to see this cleaned up sooner rather than later in the interests of not creating > even more confusion around IPv6 deployment. As such, I?m hoping that this will be able to go > to the October meeting as a Recommended Draft Policy rather than as a Draft which would require > it to again go to another ARIN meeting or PPC as an RDP. > > So far, there?s been no real discussion of the policy and one comment in support from a fellow > AC member. > > It would be very helpful in moving this forward if the community would express their opinions > on the policy either in favor or in opposition. > > Thank you. > > Owen > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. Larry Ash Network Administrator Mountain West Telephone 123 W 1st St. Casper, WY 82601 Office 307 233-8387 From Keith at jcc.com Tue Aug 9 17:59:46 2016 From: Keith at jcc.com (Keith W. Hare) Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 17:59:46 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM In-Reply-To: References: <579763D9.7010005@arin.net> Message-ID: <62D20B771F8F9C4EA8AEE574FF386962ADB62F33C8@mercury.jcc.com> From a quick read of the Community Networks section, I don?t see where someone saves anything by qualifying as a Community Network. So, I support draft policy 2016-6 as written, but would also support a proposal that completely eliminates the Community Networks sections. Keith Keith W. Hare keith at jcc.com JCC Consulting, Inc. 600 Newark Granville Road P.O. Box 381 Granville, Ohio 43023 USA Phone: +1 740-587-0157 http://www.jcc.com From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Farmer Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 11:14 PM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM As AC Shepherd, I haven't seen much discussions of this one; I think the Elimination of HD-Ratio is probably fairly non-controversial itself. However, in regards to the Community Networks section, I see three high-level alternatives for the community to consider; 1. Rewrite the Community Networks section to not reference HD-Ratio, as the Draft Policy suggests; 2. Replace the Community Networks section with a generic small ISP policy allowing allocations of /40 (qualifying for xxx-small IPv6 fee category); 3. Remove the Community Networks section all together; It doesn't seem to have been used since it was adopted, see Dan Alexander's Policy Simplification presentation, slide #4. If we go this way, 2.11 should be deleted also; https://www.arin.net/vault/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_37/PDF/tuesday/alexander_simplification.pdf#page=4 I think a rewrite in line with the original intent for the Community Networks section is the proper place to start the conversation, and I think this Draft Policy does a good job doing that. However since we need to touch the Community Networks section to accomplish the Elimination of HD-Ratio, I'd like to hear from some Community Networks to better understand why the current policy is not being used. Is there some problem with it? Is it just not necessary? Was it too early? Are Community Networks just being requested and recorded as other end user requests? Personally, I like the idea of the Community Networks policy, but since no one seems to be using it, maybe we should look at why as part of any rewrite. Comments please, even if you simply support the policy as written. Also, if you know someone involved in operating a Community Network please forward this to them, I'd really like to hear from them even if they don't want to post to PPML themselves. Thanks. On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 8:21 AM, ARIN > wrote: On 21 July 2016, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following Proposal to Draft Policy status: ARIN-prop-231: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM This Draft Policy has been numbered and titled: Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6 is below and can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_6.html 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/policy/pdp.html Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ########## Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM Date: 26 July 2016 Problem Statement: The HD-Ratio has become an anachronism in the NRPM and some of the vestigial references to it create confusion about recommended prefix sizes for IPv6 resulting in a belief in the community that ARIN endorses the idea of /56s as a unit of measure in IPv6 assignments. While there are members of the community that believe a /56 is a reasonable choice, ARIN policy has always allowed and still supports /48 prefixes for any and all end-sites without need for further justification. More restrictive choices are still permitted under policy as well. This proposal does not change that, but it attempts to eliminate some possible confusion. The last remaining vestigial references to HD-Ratio are contained in the community networks policy (Section 6.5.9). This policy seeks to replace 6.5.9 with new text incorporating end user policy by reference (roughly equivalent to the original intent of 6.5.9 prior to the more recent changes to end-user policy). While this contains a substantial rewrite to the Community Networks policy, it will not have any negative impact on community networks. It may increase the amount of IPv6 space a community network could receive due to the change from HD-Ratio, but not more than any other similar sized end-user would receive under existing policy. Policy statement: Replace section 6.5.9 in its entirety as follows: 6.5.9 Community Network Assignments While community networks would normally be considered to be ISP type organizations under existing ARIN criteria, they tend to operate on much tighter budgets and often depend on volunteer labor. As a result, they tend to be much smaller and more communal in their organization rather than provider/customer relationships of commercial ISPs. This section seeks to provide policy that is more friendly to those environments by allowing them to use end-user criteria. 6.5.9.1 Qualification Criteria To qualify under this section, a community network must demonstrate to ARIN?s satisfaction that it meets the definition of a community network under section 2.11 of the NRPM. 6.5.9.2 Receiving Resources Once qualified under this section, a community network shall be treated as an end-user assignment for all ARIN purposes (both policy and fee structure) unless or until the board adopts a specific more favorable fee structure for community networks. Community networks shall be eligible under this section only for IPv6 resources and the application process and use of those resources shall be governed by the existing end-user policy contained in section 6.5.8 et. seq. Community networks seeking other resources shall remain subject to the policies governing those resources independent of their election to use this policy for IPv6 resources. Delete section 2.8 ? This section is non-operative and conflicts with the definitions of utilization contained in current policies. Delete section 2.9 ? This section is no longer operative. Delete section 6.7 ? This section is no longer applicable. Comments: Timetable for implementation: Immediate Anything else Originally, I thought this would be an editorial change as the HD-Ratio has been unused for several years. However, further research revealed that it is still referenced in the Community Networks policy which has also gone unused since its inception. As a result, I am going to attempt to simultaneously simplify the Community Networks policy while preserving its intent and eliminate the HD-Ratio from the NRPM. I realize that fees are out of scope for policy, however, in this case, we are not setting fees. We are addressing in policy which fee structure the given policy should operate under in a manner which does not constrain board action on actual fees. This is an attempt to preserve the original intent of the Community networks policy in a way that may make it less vestigial. Alternatively, we could simply delete Section 6.5.9 if that is preferred. The primary goal here is to get rid of vestigial reference to HD-Ratio rather than to get wrapped around the axle on community networks. _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- =============================================== 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 =============================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daveid at panix.com Tue Aug 9 18:08:38 2016 From: daveid at panix.com (David Huberman) Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 15:08:38 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM In-Reply-To: <62D20B771F8F9C4EA8AEE574FF386962ADB62F33C8@mercury.jcc.com> References: <579763D9.7010005@arin.net> <62D20B771F8F9C4EA8AEE574FF386962ADB62F33C8@mercury.jcc.com> Message-ID: <62B34FC5-D89E-4C7B-BC18-42C0EE8DC25E@panix.com> Keith, Which criterion in 6.5.2.2 (ISP initial) would a small community network qualify under? Or 6.5.8.1 (end user initial)? Answer: it's been proven by the community networks folks that in many cases a requisite couldn't meet any of those criteria. They need special language, and got it. :-) > On Aug 9, 2016, at 2:59 PM, Keith W. Hare wrote: > > From a quick read of the Community Networks section, I don?t see where someone saves anything by qualifying as a Community Network. > > So, I support draft policy 2016-6 as written, but would also support a proposal that completely eliminates the Community Networks sections. > > Keith > > > Keith W. Hare > keith at jcc.com > JCC Consulting, Inc. > 600 Newark Granville Road > P.O. Box 381 > Granville, Ohio 43023 USA > Phone: +1 740-587-0157 > http://www.jcc.com > > > > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Farmer > Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 11:14 PM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM > > As AC Shepherd, I haven't seen much discussions of this one; I think the Elimination of HD-Ratio is probably fairly non-controversial itself. > > However, in regards to the Community Networks section, I see three high-level alternatives for the community to consider; > > 1. Rewrite the Community Networks section to not reference HD-Ratio, as the Draft Policy suggests; > 2. Replace the Community Networks section with a generic small ISP policy allowing allocations of /40 (qualifying for xxx-small IPv6 fee category); > 3. Remove the Community Networks section all together; It doesn't seem to have been used since it was adopted, see Dan Alexander's Policy Simplification presentation, slide #4. If we go this way, 2.11 should be deleted also; > > https://www.arin.net/vault/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_37/PDF/tuesday/alexander_simplification.pdf#page=4 > > I think a rewrite in line with the original intent for the Community Networks section is the proper place to start the conversation, and I think this Draft Policy does a good job doing that. However since we need to touch the Community Networks section to accomplish the Elimination of HD-Ratio, I'd like to hear from some Community Networks to better understand why the current policy is not being used. Is there some problem with it? Is it just not necessary? Was it too early? Are Community Networks just being requested and recorded as other end user requests? > > Personally, I like the idea of the Community Networks policy, but since no one seems to be using it, maybe we should look at why as part of any rewrite. > > Comments please, even if you simply support the policy as written. Also, if you know someone involved in operating a Community Network please forward this to them, I'd really like to hear from them even if they don't want to post to PPML themselves. > > Thanks. > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 8:21 AM, ARIN wrote: > On 21 July 2016, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following Proposal to Draft Policy status: > > ARIN-prop-231: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM > > This Draft Policy has been numbered and titled: > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6 is below and can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_6.html > > 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/policy/pdp.html > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > ########## > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM > > Date: 26 July 2016 > > Problem Statement: > > The HD-Ratio has become an anachronism in the NRPM and some of the vestigial references to it create confusion about recommended prefix sizes for IPv6 resulting in a belief in the community that ARIN endorses the idea of /56s as a unit of measure in IPv6 assignments. While there are members of the community that believe a /56 is a reasonable choice, ARIN policy has always allowed and still supports /48 prefixes for any and all end-sites without need for further justification. More restrictive choices are still permitted under policy as well. This proposal does not change that, but it attempts to eliminate some possible confusion. > > The last remaining vestigial references to HD-Ratio are contained in the community networks policy (Section 6.5.9). This policy seeks to replace 6.5.9 with new text incorporating end user policy by reference (roughly equivalent to the original intent of 6.5.9 prior to the more recent changes to end-user policy). While this contains a substantial rewrite to the Community Networks policy, it will not have any negative impact on community networks. It may increase the amount of IPv6 space a community network could receive due to the change from HD-Ratio, but not more than any other similar sized end-user would receive under existing policy. > > Policy statement: > > Replace section 6.5.9 in its entirety as follows: > > 6.5.9 Community Network Assignments > > While community networks would normally be considered to be ISP type organizations under existing ARIN criteria, they tend to operate on much tighter budgets and often depend on volunteer labor. As a result, they tend to be much smaller and more communal in their organization rather than provider/customer relationships of commercial ISPs. This section seeks to provide policy that is more friendly to those environments by allowing them to use end-user criteria. 6.5.9.1 Qualification Criteria > > To qualify under this section, a community network must demonstrate to ARIN?s satisfaction that it meets the definition of a community network under section 2.11 of the NRPM. 6.5.9.2 Receiving Resources > > Once qualified under this section, a community network shall be treated as an end-user assignment for all ARIN purposes (both policy and fee structure) unless or until the board adopts a specific more favorable fee structure for community networks. > > Community networks shall be eligible under this section only for IPv6 resources and the application process and use of those resources shall be governed by the existing end-user policy contained in section 6.5.8 et. seq. > > Community networks seeking other resources shall remain subject to the policies governing those resources independent of their election to use this policy for IPv6 resources. > > Delete section 2.8 ? This section is non-operative and conflicts with the definitions of utilization contained in current policies. > > Delete section 2.9 ? This section is no longer operative. > > Delete section 6.7 ? This section is no longer applicable. > > Comments: > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > > Anything else > > Originally, I thought this would be an editorial change as the HD-Ratio has been unused for several years. > > However, further research revealed that it is still referenced in the Community Networks policy which has also gone unused since its inception. As a result, I am going to attempt to simultaneously simplify the Community Networks policy while preserving its intent and eliminate the HD-Ratio from the NRPM. > > I realize that fees are out of scope for policy, however, in this case, we are not setting fees. We are addressing in policy which fee structure the given policy should operate under in a manner which does not constrain board action on actual fees. > > This is an attempt to preserve the original intent of the Community networks policy in a way that may make it less vestigial. > > Alternatively, we could simply delete Section 6.5.9 if that is preferred. The primary goal here is to get rid of vestigial reference to HD-Ratio rather than to get wrapped around the axle on community networks. > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > -- > =============================================== > 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 > =============================================== > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Keith at jcc.com Tue Aug 9 21:34:54 2016 From: Keith at jcc.com (Keith W. Hare) Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 21:34:54 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Community Networks (Was Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM) Message-ID: <62D20B771F8F9C4EA8AEE574FF386962ADB62F33C9@mercury.jcc.com> David, 6.5.2.2 item C requests a plan ?with a minimum of 50 assignments within 5 years? 6.5.9.1 says ?a community network must demonstrate it will immediately provide sustained service to at least 100 simultaneous users and must demonstrate a plan to provide sustained service to at least 200 simultaneous users within one year.? Seems to me that it would be easier to create a plan for 50 assignments within 5 years than demonstrate providing service to at least 100 simultaneous users immediately. I suppose the reason no one has requested IP space under the community networks proposal could be that it seems to only apply to IPv6, and there does not yet seem to be a large end-user demand for IPv6 connectivity. Or perhaps removing the HD-ratio will simplify the community network section enough that it will get used. Keith From: David Huberman [mailto:daveid at panix.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2016 6:09 PM To: Keith W. Hare Cc: David Farmer ; arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM Keith, Which criterion in 6.5.2.2 (ISP initial) would a small community network qualify under? Or 6.5.8.1 (end user initial)? Answer: it's been proven by the community networks folks that in many cases a requisite couldn't meet any of those criteria. They need special language, and got it. :-) On Aug 9, 2016, at 2:59 PM, Keith W. Hare > wrote: From a quick read of the Community Networks section, I don?t see where someone saves anything by qualifying as a Community Network. So, I support draft policy 2016-6 as written, but would also support a proposal that completely eliminates the Community Networks sections. Keith Keith W. Hare keith at jcc.com JCC Consulting, Inc. 600 Newark Granville Road P.O. Box 381 Granville, Ohio 43023 USA Phone: +1 740-587-0157 http://www.jcc.com From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Farmer Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 11:14 PM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM As AC Shepherd, I haven't seen much discussions of this one; I think the Elimination of HD-Ratio is probably fairly non-controversial itself. However, in regards to the Community Networks section, I see three high-level alternatives for the community to consider; 1. Rewrite the Community Networks section to not reference HD-Ratio, as the Draft Policy suggests; 2. Replace the Community Networks section with a generic small ISP policy allowing allocations of /40 (qualifying for xxx-small IPv6 fee category); 3. Remove the Community Networks section all together; It doesn't seem to have been used since it was adopted, see Dan Alexander's Policy Simplification presentation, slide #4. If we go this way, 2.11 should be deleted also; https://www.arin.net/vault/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_37/PDF/tuesday/alexander_simplification.pdf#page=4 I think a rewrite in line with the original intent for the Community Networks section is the proper place to start the conversation, and I think this Draft Policy does a good job doing that. However since we need to touch the Community Networks section to accomplish the Elimination of HD-Ratio, I'd like to hear from some Community Networks to better understand why the current policy is not being used. Is there some problem with it? Is it just not necessary? Was it too early? Are Community Networks just being requested and recorded as other end user requests? Personally, I like the idea of the Community Networks policy, but since no one seems to be using it, maybe we should look at why as part of any rewrite. Comments please, even if you simply support the policy as written. Also, if you know someone involved in operating a Community Network please forward this to them, I'd really like to hear from them even if they don't want to post to PPML themselves. Thanks. On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 8:21 AM, ARIN > wrote: On 21 July 2016, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following Proposal to Draft Policy status: ARIN-prop-231: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM This Draft Policy has been numbered and titled: Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6 is below and can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_6.html 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/policy/pdp.html Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ########## Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM Date: 26 July 2016 Problem Statement: The HD-Ratio has become an anachronism in the NRPM and some of the vestigial references to it create confusion about recommended prefix sizes for IPv6 resulting in a belief in the community that ARIN endorses the idea of /56s as a unit of measure in IPv6 assignments. While there are members of the community that believe a /56 is a reasonable choice, ARIN policy has always allowed and still supports /48 prefixes for any and all end-sites without need for further justification. More restrictive choices are still permitted under policy as well. This proposal does not change that, but it attempts to eliminate some possible confusion. The last remaining vestigial references to HD-Ratio are contained in the community networks policy (Section 6.5.9). This policy seeks to replace 6.5.9 with new text incorporating end user policy by reference (roughly equivalent to the original intent of 6.5.9 prior to the more recent changes to end-user policy). While this contains a substantial rewrite to the Community Networks policy, it will not have any negative impact on community networks. It may increase the amount of IPv6 space a community network could receive due to the change from HD-Ratio, but not more than any other similar sized end-user would receive under existing policy. Policy statement: Replace section 6.5.9 in its entirety as follows: 6.5.9 Community Network Assignments While community networks would normally be considered to be ISP type organizations under existing ARIN criteria, they tend to operate on much tighter budgets and often depend on volunteer labor. As a result, they tend to be much smaller and more communal in their organization rather than provider/customer relationships of commercial ISPs. This section seeks to provide policy that is more friendly to those environments by allowing them to use end-user criteria. 6.5.9.1 Qualification Criteria To qualify under this section, a community network must demonstrate to ARIN?s satisfaction that it meets the definition of a community network under section 2.11 of the NRPM. 6.5.9.2 Receiving Resources Once qualified under this section, a community network shall be treated as an end-user assignment for all ARIN purposes (both policy and fee structure) unless or until the board adopts a specific more favorable fee structure for community networks. Community networks shall be eligible under this section only for IPv6 resources and the application process and use of those resources shall be governed by the existing end-user policy contained in section 6.5.8 et. seq. Community networks seeking other resources shall remain subject to the policies governing those resources independent of their election to use this policy for IPv6 resources. Delete section 2.8 ? This section is non-operative and conflicts with the definitions of utilization contained in current policies. Delete section 2.9 ? This section is no longer operative. Delete section 6.7 ? This section is no longer applicable. Comments: Timetable for implementation: Immediate Anything else Originally, I thought this would be an editorial change as the HD-Ratio has been unused for several years. However, further research revealed that it is still referenced in the Community Networks policy which has also gone unused since its inception. As a result, I am going to attempt to simultaneously simplify the Community Networks policy while preserving its intent and eliminate the HD-Ratio from the NRPM. I realize that fees are out of scope for policy, however, in this case, we are not setting fees. We are addressing in policy which fee structure the given policy should operate under in a manner which does not constrain board action on actual fees. This is an attempt to preserve the original intent of the Community networks policy in a way that may make it less vestigial. Alternatively, we could simply delete Section 6.5.9 if that is preferred. The primary goal here is to get rid of vestigial reference to HD-Ratio rather than to get wrapped around the axle on community networks. _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- =============================================== 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 =============================================== _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daveid at panix.com Tue Aug 9 21:43:50 2016 From: daveid at panix.com (David R Huberman) Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 21:43:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-ppml] Community Networks (Was Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM) In-Reply-To: <62D20B771F8F9C4EA8AEE574FF386962ADB62F33C9@mercury.jcc.com> References: <62D20B771F8F9C4EA8AEE574FF386962ADB62F33C9@mercury.jcc.com> Message-ID: Hi Keith, Thanks for the reply. My understanding from the community network presentations given to the ARIN community was that the 50 assignments / 100 assignments thresholds were too high a bar to clear. I believe they said that commonly, community networks are often considerably smaller, connecting small groups of participants in a co-operative, zero revenue model. I'll see if I can dig up the foils in the ARIN archives (it was a few years ago now), and confirm if my memory is accurate. Or if someone who has experience with typical community network architecture is on-list and could reply, that'd be even better :) David > David, > > 6.5.2.2 item C requests a plan ???with a minimum of 50 assignments within 5 years??? > > 6.5.9.1 says ???a community network must demonstrate it will immediately provide sustained service to at least 100 simultaneous users and must demonstrate a plan to provide sustained service to at least 200 simultaneous users within one year.??? > > Seems to me that it would be easier to create a plan for 50 assignments within 5 years than demonstrate providing service to at least 100 simultaneous users immediately. > > I suppose the reason no one has requested IP space under the community networks proposal could be that it seems to only apply to IPv6, and there does not yet seem to be a large end-user demand for IPv6 connectivity. Or perhaps removing the HD-ratio will simplify the community network section enough that it will get used. > > Keith > > > From: David Huberman [mailto:daveid at panix.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2016 6:09 PM > To: Keith W. Hare > Cc: David Farmer ; arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM > > Keith, > > > Which criterion in 6.5.2.2 (ISP initial) would a small community network qualify under? Or 6.5.8.1 (end user initial)? > > Answer: it's been proven by the community networks folks that in many cases a requisite couldn't meet any of those criteria. They need special language, and got it. :-) > > > > On Aug 9, 2016, at 2:59 PM, Keith W. Hare > wrote: > From a quick read of the Community Networks section, I don???t see where someone saves anything by qualifying as a Community Network. > > So, I support draft policy 2016-6 as written, but would also support a proposal that completely eliminates the Community Networks sections. > > Keith > > > Keith W. Hare > keith at jcc.com > JCC Consulting, Inc. > 600 Newark Granville Road > P.O. Box 381 > Granville, Ohio 43023 USA > Phone: +1 740-587-0157 > http://www.jcc.com > > > > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Farmer > Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 11:14 PM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM > > As AC Shepherd, I haven't seen much discussions of this one; I think the Elimination of HD-Ratio is probably fairly non-controversial itself. > > However, in regards to the Community Networks section, I see three high-level alternatives for the community to consider; > > 1. Rewrite the Community Networks section to not reference HD-Ratio, as the Draft Policy suggests; > 2. Replace the Community Networks section with a generic small ISP policy allowing allocations of /40 (qualifying for xxx-small IPv6 fee category); > 3. Remove the Community Networks section all together; It doesn't seem to have been used since it was adopted, see Dan Alexander's Policy Simplification presentation, slide #4. If we go this way, 2.11 should be deleted also; > > https://www.arin.net/vault/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_37/PDF/tuesday/alexander_simplification.pdf#page=4 > > I think a rewrite in line with the original intent for the Community Networks section is the proper place to start the conversation, and I think this Draft Policy does a good job doing that. However since we need to touch the Community Networks section to accomplish the Elimination of HD-Ratio, I'd like to hear from some Community Networks to better understand why the current policy is not being used. Is there some problem with it? Is it just not necessary? Was it too early? Are Community Networks just being requested and recorded as other end user requests? > > Personally, I like the idea of the Community Networks policy, but since no one seems to be using it, maybe we should look at why as part of any rewrite. > > Comments please, even if you simply support the policy as written. Also, if you know someone involved in operating a Community Network please forward this to them, I'd really like to hear from them even if they don't want to post to PPML themselves. > > Thanks. > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 8:21 AM, ARIN > wrote: > On 21 July 2016, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following Proposal to Draft Policy status: > > ARIN-prop-231: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM > > This Draft Policy has been numbered and titled: > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6 is below and can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_6.html > > 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/policy/pdp.html > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > ########## > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM > > Date: 26 July 2016 > > Problem Statement: > > The HD-Ratio has become an anachronism in the NRPM and some of the vestigial references to it create confusion about recommended prefix sizes for IPv6 resulting in a belief in the community that ARIN endorses the idea of /56s as a unit of measure in IPv6 assignments. While there are members of the community that believe a /56 is a reasonable choice, ARIN policy has always allowed and still supports /48 prefixes for any and all end-sites without need for further justification. More restrictive choices are still permitted under policy as well. This proposal does not change that, but it attempts to eliminate some possible confusion. > > The last remaining vestigial references to HD-Ratio are contained in the community networks policy (Section 6.5.9). This policy seeks to replace 6.5.9 with new text incorporating end user policy by reference (roughly equivalent to the original intent of 6.5.9 prior to the more recent changes to end-user policy). While this contains a substantial rewrite to the Community Networks policy, it will not have any negative impact on community networks. It may increase the amount of IPv6 space a community network could receive due to the change from HD-Ratio, but not more than any other similar sized end-user would receive under existing policy. > > Policy statement: > > Replace section 6.5.9 in its entirety as follows: > > 6.5.9 Community Network Assignments > > While community networks would normally be considered to be ISP type organizations under existing ARIN criteria, they tend to operate on much tighter budgets and often depend on volunteer labor. As a result, they tend to be much smaller and more communal in their organization rather than provider/customer relationships of commercial ISPs. This section seeks to provide policy that is more friendly to those environments by allowing them to use end-user criteria. 6.5.9.1 Qualification Criteria > > To qualify under this section, a community network must demonstrate to ARIN???s satisfaction that it meets the definition of a community network under section 2.11 of the NRPM. 6.5.9.2 Receiving Resources > > Once qualified under this section, a community network shall be treated as an end-user assignment for all ARIN purposes (both policy and fee structure) unless or until the board adopts a specific more favorable fee structure for community networks. > > Community networks shall be eligible under this section only for IPv6 resources and the application process and use of those resources shall be governed by the existing end-user policy contained in section 6.5.8 et. seq. > > Community networks seeking other resources shall remain subject to the policies governing those resources independent of their election to use this policy for IPv6 resources. > > Delete section 2.8 ??? This section is non-operative and conflicts with the definitions of utilization contained in current policies. > > Delete section 2.9 ??? This section is no longer operative. > > Delete section 6.7 ??? This section is no longer applicable. > > Comments: > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > > Anything else > > Originally, I thought this would be an editorial change as the HD-Ratio has been unused for several years. > > However, further research revealed that it is still referenced in the Community Networks policy which has also gone unused since its inception. As a result, I am going to attempt to simultaneously simplify the Community Networks policy while preserving its intent and eliminate the HD-Ratio from the NRPM. > > I realize that fees are out of scope for policy, however, in this case, we are not setting fees. We are addressing in policy which fee structure the given policy should operate under in a manner which does not constrain board action on actual fees. > > This is an attempt to preserve the original intent of the Community networks policy in a way that may make it less vestigial. > > Alternatively, we could simply delete Section 6.5.9 if that is preferred. The primary goal here is to get rid of vestigial reference to HD-Ratio rather than to get wrapped around the axle on community networks. > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > -- > =============================================== > 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 > =============================================== > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From rudi.daniel at gmail.com Tue Aug 9 21:56:46 2016 From: rudi.daniel at gmail.com (Rudolph Daniel) Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 21:56:46 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2016-6 ARIN-PPML In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ref: 2. Replace the Community Networks section with a generic small ISP policy allowing allocations of /40 (qualifying for xxx-small IPv6 fee category); Is there any community support for above? rd On Aug 9, 2016 9:35 PM, wrote: Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to arin-ppml at arin.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to arin-ppml-request at arin.net You can reach the person managing the list at arin-ppml-owner at arin.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Community Networks (Was Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM) (Keith W. Hare) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 21:34:54 -0400 From: "Keith W. Hare" To: David Huberman Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Community Networks (Was Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM) Message-ID: <62D20B771F8F9C4EA8AEE574FF386962ADB62F33C9 at mercury.jcc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" David, 6.5.2.2 item C requests a plan ?with a minimum of 50 assignments within 5 years? 6.5.9.1 says ?a community network must demonstrate it will immediately provide sustained service to at least 100 simultaneous users and must demonstrate a plan to provide sustained service to at least 200 simultaneous users within one year.? Seems to me that it would be easier to create a plan for 50 assignments within 5 years than demonstrate providing service to at least 100 simultaneous users immediately. I suppose the reason no one has requested IP space under the community networks proposal could be that it seems to only apply to IPv6, and there does not yet seem to be a large end-user demand for IPv6 connectivity. Or perhaps removing the HD-ratio will simplify the community network section enough that it will get used. Keith From: David Huberman [mailto:daveid at panix.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2016 6:09 PM To: Keith W. Hare Cc: David Farmer ; arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM Keith, Which criterion in 6.5.2.2 (ISP initial) would a small community network qualify under? Or 6.5.8.1 (end user initial)? Answer: it's been proven by the community networks folks that in many cases a requisite couldn't meet any of those criteria. They need special language, and got it. :-) On Aug 9, 2016, at 2:59 PM, Keith W. Hare > wrote: >From a quick read of the Community Networks section, I don?t see where someone saves anything by qualifying as a Community Network. So, I support draft policy 2016-6 as written, but would also support a proposal that completely eliminates the Community Networks sections. Keith Keith W. Hare keith at jcc.com JCC Consulting, Inc. 600 Newark Granville Road P.O. Box 381 Granville, Ohio 43023 USA Phone: +1 740-587-0157 http://www.jcc.com From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Farmer Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 11:14 PM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM As AC Shepherd, I haven't seen much discussions of this one; I think the Elimination of HD-Ratio is probably fairly non-controversial itself. However, in regards to the Community Networks section, I see three high-level alternatives for the community to consider; 1. Rewrite the Community Networks section to not reference HD-Ratio, as the Draft Policy suggests; 2. Replace the Community Networks section with a generic small ISP policy allowing allocations of /40 (qualifying for xxx-small IPv6 fee category); 3. Remove the Community Networks section all together; It doesn't seem to have been used since it was adopted, see Dan Alexander's Policy Simplification presentation, slide #4. If we go this way, 2.11 should be deleted also; https://www.arin.net/vault/participate/meetings/reports/ ARIN_37/PDF/tuesday/alexander_simplification.pdf#page=4 I think a rewrite in line with the original intent for the Community Networks section is the proper place to start the conversation, and I think this Draft Policy does a good job doing that. However since we need to touch the Community Networks section to accomplish the Elimination of HD-Ratio, I'd like to hear from some Community Networks to better understand why the current policy is not being used. Is there some problem with it? Is it just not necessary? Was it too early? Are Community Networks just being requested and recorded as other end user requests? Personally, I like the idea of the Community Networks policy, but since no one seems to be using it, maybe we should look at why as part of any rewrite. Comments please, even if you simply support the policy as written. Also, if you know someone involved in operating a Community Network please forward this to them, I'd really like to hear from them even if they don't want to post to PPML themselves. Thanks. On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 8:21 AM, ARIN > wrote: On 21 July 2016, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following Proposal to Draft Policy status: ARIN-prop-231: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM This Draft Policy has been numbered and titled: Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6 is below and can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_6.html 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/policy/pdp.html Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ########## Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM Date: 26 July 2016 Problem Statement: The HD-Ratio has become an anachronism in the NRPM and some of the vestigial references to it create confusion about recommended prefix sizes for IPv6 resulting in a belief in the community that ARIN endorses the idea of /56s as a unit of measure in IPv6 assignments. While there are members of the community that believe a /56 is a reasonable choice, ARIN policy has always allowed and still supports /48 prefixes for any and all end-sites without need for further justification. More restrictive choices are still permitted under policy as well. This proposal does not change that, but it attempts to eliminate some possible confusion. The last remaining vestigial references to HD-Ratio are contained in the community networks policy (Section 6.5.9). This policy seeks to replace 6.5.9 with new text incorporating end user policy by reference (roughly equivalent to the original intent of 6.5.9 prior to the more recent changes to end-user policy). While this contains a substantial rewrite to the Community Networks policy, it will not have any negative impact on community networks. It may increase the amount of IPv6 space a community network could receive due to the change from HD-Ratio, but not more than any other similar sized end-user would receive under existing policy. Policy statement: Replace section 6.5.9 in its entirety as follows: 6.5.9 Community Network Assignments While community networks would normally be considered to be ISP type organizations under existing ARIN criteria, they tend to operate on much tighter budgets and often depend on volunteer labor. As a result, they tend to be much smaller and more communal in their organization rather than provider/customer relationships of commercial ISPs. This section seeks to provide policy that is more friendly to those environments by allowing them to use end-user criteria. 6.5.9.1 Qualification Criteria To qualify under this section, a community network must demonstrate to ARIN?s satisfaction that it meets the definition of a community network under section 2.11 of the NRPM. 6.5.9.2 Receiving Resources Once qualified under this section, a community network shall be treated as an end-user assignment for all ARIN purposes (both policy and fee structure) unless or until the board adopts a specific more favorable fee structure for community networks. Community networks shall be eligible under this section only for IPv6 resources and the application process and use of those resources shall be governed by the existing end-user policy contained in section 6.5.8 et. seq. Community networks seeking other resources shall remain subject to the policies governing those resources independent of their election to use this policy for IPv6 resources. Delete section 2.8 ? This section is non-operative and conflicts with the definitions of utilization contained in current policies. Delete section 2.9 ? This section is no longer operative. Delete section 6.7 ? This section is no longer applicable. Comments: Timetable for implementation: Immediate Anything else Originally, I thought this would be an editorial change as the HD-Ratio has been unused for several years. However, further research revealed that it is still referenced in the Community Networks policy which has also gone unused since its inception. As a result, I am going to attempt to simultaneously simplify the Community Networks policy while preserving its intent and eliminate the HD-Ratio from the NRPM. I realize that fees are out of scope for policy, however, in this case, we are not setting fees. We are addressing in policy which fee structure the given policy should operate under in a manner which does not constrain board action on actual fees. This is an attempt to preserve the original intent of the Community networks policy in a way that may make it less vestigial. Alternatively, we could simply delete Section 6.5.9 if that is preferred. The primary goal here is to get rid of vestigial reference to HD-Ratio rather than to get wrapped around the axle on community networks. _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- =============================================== 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 =============================================== _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML mailing list ARIN-PPML at arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 134, Issue 4 ***************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Tue Aug 9 22:11:42 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 19:11:42 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Community Networks (Was Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM) In-Reply-To: <62D20B771F8F9C4EA8AEE574FF386962ADB62F33C9@mercury.jcc.com> References: <62D20B771F8F9C4EA8AEE574FF386962ADB62F33C9@mercury.jcc.com> Message-ID: > On Aug 9, 2016, at 18:34 , Keith W. Hare wrote: > > David, > > 6.5.2.2 item C requests a plan ?with a minimum of 50 assignments within 5 years? > ? <> > 6.5.9.1 says ?a community network must demonstrate it will immediately provide sustained service to at least 100 simultaneous users and must demonstrate a plan to provide sustained service to at least 200 simultaneous users within one year.? Many community networks don?t do any ?assignments? to their end-users, so it is actually quite likely that they meet 6.5.9.1 without qualifying for 6.5.2.2. > Seems to me that it would be easier to create a plan for 50 assignments within 5 years than demonstrate providing service to at least 100 simultaneous users immediately. You?d be surprised. Community networks largely provide service directly to end hosts rather than to other networks. As a general rule, assignments are made to other networks (e.g. a /48 to a customer from an ISP). Many community networks simply don?t do that, but they often have a few hundred simultaneous end users on line at any given time. > I suppose the reason no one has requested IP space under the community networks proposal could be that it seems to only apply to IPv6, and there does not yet seem to be a large end-user demand for IPv6 connectivity. Or perhaps removing the HD-ratio will simplify the community network section enough that it will get used. I think that a combination of factors applies. I think that until recently most community networks were priced out of the possibility of going to ARIN for space as well. Many of these organizations depend on a few dedicated members to scrape together domain fees each year for their web site. There was some hope at the time the policy was developed that it might enable the board to provide deeply discounted service to qualifying networks. That didn?t come to fruition and could also be a significant factor in the policy not yet getting used. Owen > > Keith > > > From: David Huberman [mailto:daveid at panix.com ] > Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2016 6:09 PM > To: Keith W. Hare > > Cc: David Farmer >; arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM > > Keith, > > > Which criterion in 6.5.2.2 (ISP initial) would a small community network qualify under? Or 6.5.8.1 (end user initial)? > > Answer: it's been proven by the community networks folks that in many cases a requisite couldn't meet any of those criteria. They need special language, and got it. :-) > > > > On Aug 9, 2016, at 2:59 PM, Keith W. Hare > wrote: > > From a quick read of the Community Networks section, I don?t see where someone saves anything by qualifying as a Community Network. > > So, I support draft policy 2016-6 as written, but would also support a proposal that completely eliminates the Community Networks sections. > > Keith > > > Keith W. Hare > keith at jcc.com > JCC Consulting, Inc. > 600 Newark Granville Road > P.O. Box 381 > Granville, Ohio 43023 USA > Phone: +1 740-587-0157 > http://www.jcc.com > > > > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net ] On Behalf Of David Farmer > Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 11:14 PM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM > > As AC Shepherd, I haven't seen much discussions of this one; I think the Elimination of HD-Ratio is probably fairly non-controversial itself. > > However, in regards to the Community Networks section, I see three high-level alternatives for the community to consider; > > 1. Rewrite the Community Networks section to not reference HD-Ratio, as the Draft Policy suggests; > 2. Replace the Community Networks section with a generic small ISP policy allowing allocations of /40 (qualifying for xxx-small IPv6 fee category); > 3. Remove the Community Networks section all together; It doesn't seem to have been used since it was adopted, see Dan Alexander's Policy Simplification presentation, slide #4. If we go this way, 2.11 should be deleted also; > > https://www.arin.net/vault/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_37/PDF/tuesday/alexander_simplification.pdf#page=4 > > I think a rewrite in line with the original intent for the Community Networks section is the proper place to start the conversation, and I think this Draft Policy does a good job doing that. However since we need to touch the Community Networks section to accomplish the Elimination of HD-Ratio, I'd like to hear from some Community Networks to better understand why the current policy is not being used. Is there some problem with it? Is it just not necessary? Was it too early? Are Community Networks just being requested and recorded as other end user requests? > > Personally, I like the idea of the Community Networks policy, but since no one seems to be using it, maybe we should look at why as part of any rewrite. > > Comments please, even if you simply support the policy as written. Also, if you know someone involved in operating a Community Network please forward this to them, I'd really like to hear from them even if they don't want to post to PPML themselves. > > Thanks. > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 8:21 AM, ARIN > wrote: > On 21 July 2016, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following Proposal to Draft Policy status: > > ARIN-prop-231: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM > > This Draft Policy has been numbered and titled: > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6 is below and can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_6.html > > 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/policy/pdp.html > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > ########## > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM > > Date: 26 July 2016 > > Problem Statement: > > The HD-Ratio has become an anachronism in the NRPM and some of the vestigial references to it create confusion about recommended prefix sizes for IPv6 resulting in a belief in the community that ARIN endorses the idea of /56s as a unit of measure in IPv6 assignments. While there are members of the community that believe a /56 is a reasonable choice, ARIN policy has always allowed and still supports /48 prefixes for any and all end-sites without need for further justification. More restrictive choices are still permitted under policy as well. This proposal does not change that, but it attempts to eliminate some possible confusion. > > The last remaining vestigial references to HD-Ratio are contained in the community networks policy (Section 6.5.9). This policy seeks to replace 6.5.9 with new text incorporating end user policy by reference (roughly equivalent to the original intent of 6.5.9 prior to the more recent changes to end-user policy). While this contains a substantial rewrite to the Community Networks policy, it will not have any negative impact on community networks. It may increase the amount of IPv6 space a community network could receive due to the change from HD-Ratio, but not more than any other similar sized end-user would receive under existing policy. > > Policy statement: > > Replace section 6.5.9 in its entirety as follows: > > 6.5.9 Community Network Assignments > > While community networks would normally be considered to be ISP type organizations under existing ARIN criteria, they tend to operate on much tighter budgets and often depend on volunteer labor. As a result, they tend to be much smaller and more communal in their organization rather than provider/customer relationships of commercial ISPs. This section seeks to provide policy that is more friendly to those environments by allowing them to use end-user criteria. 6.5.9.1 Qualification Criteria > > To qualify under this section, a community network must demonstrate to ARIN?s satisfaction that it meets the definition of a community network under section 2.11 of the NRPM. 6.5.9.2 Receiving Resources > > Once qualified under this section, a community network shall be treated as an end-user assignment for all ARIN purposes (both policy and fee structure) unless or until the board adopts a specific more favorable fee structure for community networks. > > Community networks shall be eligible under this section only for IPv6 resources and the application process and use of those resources shall be governed by the existing end-user policy contained in section 6.5.8 et. seq. > > Community networks seeking other resources shall remain subject to the policies governing those resources independent of their election to use this policy for IPv6 resources. > > Delete section 2.8 ? This section is non-operative and conflicts with the definitions of utilization contained in current policies. > > Delete section 2.9 ? This section is no longer operative. > > Delete section 6.7 ? This section is no longer applicable. > > Comments: > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > > Anything else > > Originally, I thought this would be an editorial change as the HD-Ratio has been unused for several years. > > However, further research revealed that it is still referenced in the Community Networks policy which has also gone unused since its inception. As a result, I am going to attempt to simultaneously simplify the Community Networks policy while preserving its intent and eliminate the HD-Ratio from the NRPM. > > I realize that fees are out of scope for policy, however, in this case, we are not setting fees. We are addressing in policy which fee structure the given policy should operate under in a manner which does not constrain board action on actual fees. > > This is an attempt to preserve the original intent of the Community networks policy in a way that may make it less vestigial. > > Alternatively, we could simply delete Section 6.5.9 if that is preferred. The primary goal here is to get rid of vestigial reference to HD-Ratio rather than to get wrapped around the axle on community networks. > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net ). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > -- > =============================================== > 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 > =============================================== > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net ). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net ). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daveid at panix.com Tue Aug 9 22:17:06 2016 From: daveid at panix.com (David R Huberman) Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 22:17:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-ppml] Community Networks (Was Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM) In-Reply-To: References: <62D20B771F8F9C4EA8AEE574FF386962ADB62F33C9@mercury.jcc.com> Message-ID: I dug through the archives and wow, this policy (2008-3) had a long history. It took 21 months from start to finish, was revised 4 times, and was discussed in 23 separate ARIN AC meetings. tldr: existing v6 policy in 2008-2009 could not be met by operators of community networks, due to both the ARIN implementation of what constitutes an assignment, and a routing requirement (which has since disappeared from NRPM). 1) Policy rationale (final draft): This policy was originally proposed by community network operators to provide them with the ability to receive a direct assignment of IPv6 address resources from ARIN. The operators of such networks have expressed their need to have a stable and globally unique address assignment with which to number their network infrastructure. Many such networks are not able to meet the current criteria for a PI IPv6 assignment from ARIN. 2) In the first Public Policy Meeting this was presented, the topic of "cannot meet existing policy" was mostly centered around the criterion that existed of "must announce a single aggregte" into the DFZ. The presenter (Joshua King) indicated this was not possible for all community network implementations. Somewhere along the way between 2008 and today, that "announce one aggregate" requirement disappeared from NRPM. 3) In the second Public Policy Meeting this was presented, the discussion centered around how ARIN staff applied IPv6 "you must have this many assignments" text, and what did (and did not) qualify as an assignment. The discussion seems to conclude that the proposed Community Networks policy would relax the requirements (as compared to existing IPv6 policy) and would allow ARIN staff to say "yes" more so than the NRPM at the time did. 4) [Note to ARIN staff - the link to the PDF of the 2008-3 presentation for ARIN XXIII has a typo and brings up the PDF for 2009-3, not 2008-3.] This final PPM presentation is where support for the Caribbean carve-out became vocal, and the text crystallized into what we have today. From rudi.daniel at gmail.com Tue Aug 9 22:24:07 2016 From: rudi.daniel at gmail.com (Rudolph Daniel) Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 22:24:07 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2016-6 ARIN-PPML In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ref: 2. Replace the Community Networks section with a generic small ISP policy allowing allocations of /40 (qualifying for xxx-small IPv6 fee category); Is there any community support for above? rd Apologies for the previous post, it's difficult to find my comment as posted. >> >> 1. Rewrite the Community Networks section to not reference HD-Ratio, as the Draft Policy suggests; >> 2. Replace the Community Networks section with a generic small ISP policy allowing allocations of /40 (qualifying for xxx-small IPv6 fee category); >> 3. Remove the Community Networks section all together; It doesn't seem to have been used since it was adopted, see Dan Alexander's Policy Simplification presentation, slide #4. If we go this way, 2.11 should be deleted also; >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjones at vt.edu Wed Aug 10 10:09:58 2016 From: bjones at vt.edu (Brian Jones) Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 10:09:58 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Community Networks (Was Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM) In-Reply-To: <62D20B771F8F9C4EA8AEE574FF386962ADB62F33C9@mercury.jcc.com> References: <62D20B771F8F9C4EA8AEE574FF386962ADB62F33C9@mercury.jcc.com> Message-ID: -- Brian On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Keith W. Hare wrote: > David, > > > > 6.5.2.2 item C requests a plan ?with a minimum of 50 assignments within 5 > years? > > > > 6.5.9.1 says ?a community network must demonstrate it will immediately > provide sustained service to at least 100 simultaneous users and must > demonstrate a plan to provide sustained service to at least 200 > simultaneous users within one year.? > > > > Seems to me that it would be easier to create a plan for 50 assignments > within 5 years than demonstrate providing service to at least 100 > simultaneous users immediately. > > > > I suppose the reason no one has requested IP space under the community > networks proposal could be that it seems to only apply to IPv6, and there > does not yet seem to be a large end-user demand for IPv6 connectivity. Or > perhaps removing the HD-ratio will simplify the community network section > enough that it will get used. > > > ?+1? ?I am thinking the same thing, that if the HD-ratio is relaxed or removed that the community section will start to be used. ? > Keith > > > > > > *From:* David Huberman [mailto:daveid at panix.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 9, 2016 6:09 PM > *To:* Keith W. Hare > *Cc:* David Farmer ; arin-ppml at arin.net > *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio > from NRPM > > > > Keith, > > > > > > Which criterion in 6.5.2.2 (ISP initial) would a small community network > qualify under? Or 6.5.8.1 (end user initial)? > > > > Answer: it's been proven by the community networks folks that in many > cases a requisite couldn't meet any of those criteria. They need special > language, and got it. :-) > > > > > > > On Aug 9, 2016, at 2:59 PM, Keith W. Hare wrote: > > From a quick read of the Community Networks section, I don?t see where > someone saves anything by qualifying as a Community Network. > > > > So, I support draft policy 2016-6 as written, but would also support a > proposal that completely eliminates the Community Networks sections. > > > > Keith > > > > > > Keith W. Hare > > keith at jcc.com > > JCC Consulting, Inc. > > 600 Newark Granville Road > > P.O. Box 381 > > Granville, Ohio 43023 USA > > Phone: +1 740-587-0157 > > http://www.jcc.com > > > > > > > > > > *From:* arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net > ] *On Behalf Of *David Farmer > *Sent:* Monday, August 8, 2016 11:14 PM > *To:* arin-ppml at arin.net > *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio > from NRPM > > > > As AC Shepherd, I haven't seen much discussions of this one; I think the > Elimination of HD-Ratio is probably fairly non-controversial itself. > > > > However, in regards to the Community Networks section, I see three > high-level alternatives for the community to consider; > > 1. Rewrite the Community Networks section to not reference HD-Ratio, as > the Draft Policy suggests; > > 2. Replace the Community Networks section with a generic small ISP > policy allowing allocations of /40 (qualifying for xxx-small IPv6 > fee category); > > 3. Remove the Community Networks section all together; It doesn't seem > to have been used since it was adopted, see Dan Alexander's Policy > Simplification presentation, slide #4. If we go this way, 2.11 should be > deleted also; > > > > https://www.arin.net/vault/participate/meetings/reports/ > ARIN_37/PDF/tuesday/alexander_simplification.pdf#page=4 > > > > I think a rewrite in line with the original intent for the Community > Networks section is the proper place to start the conversation, and I think > this Draft Policy does a good job doing that. However since we need to > touch the Community Networks section to accomplish the Elimination of > HD-Ratio, I'd like to hear from some Community Networks to better > understand why the current policy is not being used. Is there some problem > with it? Is it just not necessary? Was it too early? Are Community > Networks just being requested and recorded as other end user requests? > > > > Personally, I like the idea of the Community Networks policy, but since no > one seems to be using it, maybe we should look at why as part of any > rewrite. > > > > Comments please, even if you simply support the policy as written. Also, > if you know someone involved in operating a Community Network please > forward this to them, I'd really like to hear from them even if they don't > want to post to PPML themselves. > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 8:21 AM, ARIN wrote: > > On 21 July 2016, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following > Proposal to Draft Policy status: > > ARIN-prop-231: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM > > This Draft Policy has been numbered and titled: > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6 is below and can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_6.html > > 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/policy/pdp.html > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > ########## > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM > > Date: 26 July 2016 > > Problem Statement: > > The HD-Ratio has become an anachronism in the NRPM and some of the > vestigial references to it create confusion about recommended prefix sizes > for IPv6 resulting in a belief in the community that ARIN endorses the idea > of /56s as a unit of measure in IPv6 assignments. While there are members > of the community that believe a /56 is a reasonable choice, ARIN policy has > always allowed and still supports /48 prefixes for any and all end-sites > without need for further justification. More restrictive choices are still > permitted under policy as well. This proposal does not change that, but it > attempts to eliminate some possible confusion. > > The last remaining vestigial references to HD-Ratio are contained in the > community networks policy (Section 6.5.9). This policy seeks to replace > 6.5.9 with new text incorporating end user policy by reference (roughly > equivalent to the original intent of 6.5.9 prior to the more recent changes > to end-user policy). While this contains a substantial rewrite to the > Community Networks policy, it will not have any negative impact on > community networks. It may increase the amount of IPv6 space a community > network could receive due to the change from HD-Ratio, but not more than > any other similar sized end-user would receive under existing policy. > > Policy statement: > > Replace section 6.5.9 in its entirety as follows: > > 6.5.9 Community Network Assignments > > While community networks would normally be considered to be ISP type > organizations under existing ARIN criteria, they tend to operate on much > tighter budgets and often depend on volunteer labor. As a result, they tend > to be much smaller and more communal in their organization rather than > provider/customer relationships of commercial ISPs. This section seeks to > provide policy that is more friendly to those environments by allowing them > to use end-user criteria. 6.5.9.1 Qualification Criteria > > To qualify under this section, a community network must demonstrate to > ARIN?s satisfaction that it meets the definition of a community network > under section 2.11 of the NRPM. 6.5.9.2 Receiving Resources > > Once qualified under this section, a community network shall be treated as > an end-user assignment for all ARIN purposes (both policy and fee > structure) unless or until the board adopts a specific more favorable fee > structure for community networks. > > Community networks shall be eligible under this section only for IPv6 > resources and the application process and use of those resources shall be > governed by the existing end-user policy contained in section 6.5.8 et. seq. > > Community networks seeking other resources shall remain subject to the > policies governing those resources independent of their election to use > this policy for IPv6 resources. > > Delete section 2.8 ? This section is non-operative and conflicts with the > definitions of utilization contained in current policies. > > Delete section 2.9 ? This section is no longer operative. > > Delete section 6.7 ? This section is no longer applicable. > > Comments: > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > > Anything else > > Originally, I thought this would be an editorial change as the HD-Ratio > has been unused for several years. > > However, further research revealed that it is still referenced in the > Community Networks policy which has also gone unused since its inception. > As a result, I am going to attempt to simultaneously simplify the Community > Networks policy while preserving its intent and eliminate the HD-Ratio from > the NRPM. > > I realize that fees are out of scope for policy, however, in this case, we > are not setting fees. We are addressing in policy which fee structure the > given policy should operate under in a manner which does not constrain > board action on actual fees. > > This is an attempt to preserve the original intent of the Community > networks policy in a way that may make it less vestigial. > > Alternatively, we could simply delete Section 6.5.9 if that is preferred. > The primary goal here is to get rid of vestigial reference to HD-Ratio > rather than to get wrapped around the axle on community networks. > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > > > -- > > =============================================== > 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 > =============================================== > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farmer at umn.edu Wed Aug 10 16:02:36 2016 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 15:02:36 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2016-6 ARIN-PPML In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If there is strong interest from the community I'd be happy to flesh this idea out a bit more. But without several others expressing strong interest, I think it would just be a distraction. So, please speak up if you are interested in this idea. Thanks. On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Rudolph Daniel wrote: > Ref: > 2. Replace the Community Networks section with a generic small ISP policy > allowing allocations of /40 (qualifying for xxx-small IPv6 fee category); > > Is there any community support for above? > > rd > Apologies for the previous post, it's difficult to find my comment as > posted. > > >> > >> 1. Rewrite the Community Networks section to not reference HD-Ratio, > as the Draft Policy suggests; > >> 2. Replace the Community Networks section with a generic small ISP > policy allowing allocations of /40 (qualifying for xxx-small IPv6 fee > category); > >> 3. Remove the Community Networks section all together; It doesn't > seem to have been used since it was adopted, see Dan Alexander's Policy > Simplification presentation, slide #4. If we go this way, 2.11 should be > deleted also; > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -- =============================================== 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 =============================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Aug 12 00:53:04 2016 From: narten at us.ibm.com (narten at us.ibm.com) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 00:53:04 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201608120453.u7C4r4IL010551@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 14 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Aug 12 00:53:04 EDT 2016 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 14.29% | 2 | 23.93% | 88071 | keith at jcc.com 21.43% | 3 | 16.48% | 60627 | daveid at panix.com 14.29% | 2 | 19.10% | 70298 | owen at delong.com 14.29% | 2 | 12.82% | 47165 | rudi.daniel at gmail.com 14.29% | 2 | 11.47% | 42193 | farmer at umn.edu 7.14% | 1 | 11.64% | 42844 | bjones at vt.edu 7.14% | 1 | 2.39% | 8790 | narten at us.ibm.com 7.14% | 1 | 2.17% | 7978 | lar at mwtcorp.net --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 14 |100.00% | 367966 | Total From rjletts at uw.edu Fri Aug 12 13:13:04 2016 From: rjletts at uw.edu (Richard J. Letts) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 17:13:04 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Community Networks (Was Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM) In-Reply-To: References: <62D20B771F8F9C4EA8AEE574FF386962ADB62F33C9@mercury.jcc.com> Message-ID: 6.5.9.1 says more than was quoted. The bit that was missing is "For community networks located in rural regions (population less than 2,500) or in the Caribbean and North Atlantic Islands Sector, the numbers in these qualification criteria may be relaxed at ARIN's discretion." More than half of the 'cities' (55% to be exact) in the State of Washington have populations less than 2500 people -- so if the 50/100 was really an impediment an applicant/ARIN has a way out of it. This is somewhat beside the point: I'm all for getting rid of inapplicable sections of the NPRM and the HD-ratio seems to be one of them /RjL > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David R Huberman > > Hi Keith, > > Thanks for the reply. > > My understanding from the community network presentations given to the > ARIN community was that the 50 assignments / 100 assignments thresholds > were too high a bar to clear. I believe they said that commonly, community > networks are often considerably smaller, connecting small groups of > participants in a co-operative, zero revenue model. > > I'll see if I can dig up the foils in the ARIN archives (it was a few years ago > now), and confirm if my memory is accurate. Or if someone who has > experience with typical community network architecture is on-list and could > reply, that'd be even better :) > > David > > > > > David, > > > > 6.5.2.2 item C requests a plan ?with a minimum of 50 assignments within 5 > years? > > > > 6.5.9.1 says ?a community network must demonstrate it will immediately > provide sustained service to at least 100 simultaneous users and must > demonstrate a plan to provide sustained service to at least 200 simultaneous > users within one year.? > > > > Seems to me that it would be easier to create a plan for 50 assignments > within 5 years than demonstrate providing service to at least 100 > simultaneous users immediately. > > > > I suppose the reason no one has requested IP space under the community > networks proposal could be that it seems to only apply to IPv6, and there > does not yet seem to be a large end-user demand for IPv6 connectivity. Or > perhaps removing the HD-ratio will simplify the community network section > enough that it will get used. > > > > Keith > > > > > > From: David Huberman [mailto:daveid at panix.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2016 6:09 PM > > To: Keith W. Hare > > Cc: David Farmer ; arin-ppml at arin.net > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio > > from NRPM > > > > Keith, > > > > > > Which criterion in 6.5.2.2 (ISP initial) would a small community network > qualify under? Or 6.5.8.1 (end user initial)? > > > > Answer: it's been proven by the community networks folks that in many > > cases a requisite couldn't meet any of those criteria. They need > > special language, and got it. :-) > > > > > > > > On Aug 9, 2016, at 2:59 PM, Keith W. Hare > > wrote: > > From a quick read of the Community Networks section, I don?t see where > someone saves anything by qualifying as a Community Network. > > > > So, I support draft policy 2016-6 as written, but would also support a > proposal that completely eliminates the Community Networks sections. > > > > Keith > > > > > > Keith W. Hare > > keith at jcc.com > > JCC Consulting, Inc. > > 600 Newark Granville Road > > P.O. Box 381 > > Granville, Ohio 43023 USA > > Phone: +1 740-587-0157 > > http://www.jcc.com > > > > > > > > > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net > > [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Farmer > > Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 11:14 PM > > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio > > from NRPM > > > > As AC Shepherd, I haven't seen much discussions of this one; I think the > Elimination of HD-Ratio is probably fairly non-controversial itself. > > > > However, in regards to the Community Networks section, I see three > > high-level alternatives for the community to consider; > > > > 1. Rewrite the Community Networks section to not reference HD-Ratio, as > the Draft Policy suggests; > > 2. Replace the Community Networks section with a generic small ISP policy > allowing allocations of /40 (qualifying for xxx-small IPv6 fee category); > > 3. Remove the Community Networks section all together; It doesn't > > seem to have been used since it was adopted, see Dan Alexander's > > Policy Simplification presentation, slide #4. If we go this way, 2.11 > > should be deleted also; > > > > > https://www.arin.net/vault/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_37/PDF/tu > > esday/alexander_simplification.pdf#page=4 > > > > I think a rewrite in line with the original intent for the Community Networks > section is the proper place to start the conversation, and I think this Draft > Policy does a good job doing that. However since we need to touch the > Community Networks section to accomplish the Elimination of HD-Ratio, I'd > like to hear from some Community Networks to better understand why the > current policy is not being used. Is there some problem with it? Is it just not > necessary? Was it too early? Are Community Networks just being requested > and recorded as other end user requests? > > > > Personally, I like the idea of the Community Networks policy, but since no > one seems to be using it, maybe we should look at why as part of any > rewrite. > > > > Comments please, even if you simply support the policy as written. Also, if > you know someone involved in operating a Community Network please > forward this to them, I'd really like to hear from them even if they don't want > to post to PPML themselves. > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 8:21 AM, ARIN > > wrote: > > On 21 July 2016, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following > Proposal to Draft Policy status: > > > > ARIN-prop-231: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM > > > > This Draft Policy has been numbered and titled: > > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM > > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6 is below and can be found at: > > > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_6.html > > > > 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/policy/pdp.html > > > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > > > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > > > Regards, > > > > Communications and Member Services > > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > ########## > > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM > > > > Date: 26 July 2016 > > > > Problem Statement: > > > > The HD-Ratio has become an anachronism in the NRPM and some of the > vestigial references to it create confusion about recommended prefix sizes > for IPv6 resulting in a belief in the community that ARIN endorses the idea of > /56s as a unit of measure in IPv6 assignments. While there are members of > the community that believe a /56 is a reasonable choice, ARIN policy has > always allowed and still supports /48 prefixes for any and all end-sites > without need for further justification. More restrictive choices are still > permitted under policy as well. This proposal does not change that, but it > attempts to eliminate some possible confusion. > > > > The last remaining vestigial references to HD-Ratio are contained in the > community networks policy (Section 6.5.9). This policy seeks to replace 6.5.9 > with new text incorporating end user policy by reference (roughly equivalent > to the original intent of 6.5.9 prior to the more recent changes to end-user > policy). While this contains a substantial rewrite to the Community Networks > policy, it will not have any negative impact on community networks. It may > increase the amount of IPv6 space a community network could receive due > to the change from HD-Ratio, but not more than any other similar sized end- > user would receive under existing policy. > > > > Policy statement: > > > > Replace section 6.5.9 in its entirety as follows: > > > > 6.5.9 Community Network Assignments > > > > While community networks would normally be considered to be ISP type > > organizations under existing ARIN criteria, they tend to operate on > > much tighter budgets and often depend on volunteer labor. As a result, > > they tend to be much smaller and more communal in their organization > > rather than provider/customer relationships of commercial ISPs. This > > section seeks to provide policy that is more friendly to those > > environments by allowing them to use end-user criteria. 6.5.9.1 > > Qualification Criteria > > > > To qualify under this section, a community network must demonstrate to > > ARIN?s satisfaction that it meets the definition of a community > > network under section 2.11 of the NRPM. 6.5.9.2 Receiving Resources > > > > Once qualified under this section, a community network shall be treated as > an end-user assignment for all ARIN purposes (both policy and fee structure) > unless or until the board adopts a specific more favorable fee structure for > community networks. > > > > Community networks shall be eligible under this section only for IPv6 > resources and the application process and use of those resources shall be > governed by the existing end-user policy contained in section 6.5.8 et. seq. > > > > Community networks seeking other resources shall remain subject to the > policies governing those resources independent of their election to use this > policy for IPv6 resources. > > > > Delete section 2.8 ? This section is non-operative and conflicts with the > definitions of utilization contained in current policies. > > > > Delete section 2.9 ? This section is no longer operative. > > > > Delete section 6.7 ? This section is no longer applicable. > > > > Comments: > > > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > > > > Anything else > > > > Originally, I thought this would be an editorial change as the HD-Ratio has > been unused for several years. > > > > However, further research revealed that it is still referenced in the > Community Networks policy which has also gone unused since its inception. > As a result, I am going to attempt to simultaneously simplify the Community > Networks policy while preserving its intent and eliminate the HD-Ratio from > the NRPM. > > > > I realize that fees are out of scope for policy, however, in this case, we are > not setting fees. We are addressing in policy which fee structure the given > policy should operate under in a manner which does not constrain board > action on actual fees. > > > > This is an attempt to preserve the original intent of the Community > networks policy in a way that may make it less vestigial. > > > > Alternatively, we could simply delete Section 6.5.9 if that is preferred. The > primary goal here is to get rid of vestigial reference to HD-Ratio rather than to > get wrapped around the axle on community networks. > > _______________________________________________ > > PPML > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > > Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net PPML at arin.net>). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any > issues. > > > > > > > > -- > > =============================================== > > 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 > > =============================================== > > _______________________________________________ > > PPML > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > > Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net PPML at arin.net>). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any > issues. > > From farmer at umn.edu Tue Aug 16 20:21:34 2016 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 19:21:34 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Community Networks (Was Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM) In-Reply-To: References: <62D20B771F8F9C4EA8AEE574FF386962ADB62F33C9@mercury.jcc.com> Message-ID: Yes, this removes the Caribbean and rural text that is in the current Community Networks policy. I believe that was intentional, maybe it should be noted in the comments to make that clear. Or, do you believe we should keep that or similar text? Additional comments on this policy would be appreciated. Thanks. On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Richard J. Letts wrote: > 6.5.9.1 says more than was quoted. > > The bit that was missing is "For community networks located in rural > regions (population less than 2,500) or in the Caribbean and North Atlantic > Islands Sector, the numbers in these qualification criteria may be relaxed > at ARIN's discretion." > > More than half of the 'cities' (55% to be exact) in the State of > Washington have populations less than 2500 people -- so if the 50/100 was > really an impediment an applicant/ARIN has a way out of it. > > This is somewhat beside the point: I'm all for getting rid of inapplicable > sections of the NPRM and the HD-ratio seems to be one of them > > /RjL > > -- =============================================== 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 =============================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farmer at umn.edu Tue Aug 16 20:56:50 2016 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 19:56:50 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Community Networks (Was Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM) Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 9:17 PM, David R Huberman wrote: > ...... > > 2) In the first Public Policy Meeting this was presented, the topic of > "cannot meet existing policy" was mostly centered around the criterion that > existed of "must announce a single aggregte" into the DFZ. The presenter > (Joshua King) indicated this was not possible for all community network > implementations. > > Somewhere along the way between 2008 and today, that "announce one > aggregate" requirement disappeared from NRPM. > Eliminating the "announce single aggregate" requirement from IPv6 policy was Draft Policy 2009-7: Open Access To IPv6, spurred on by the Community Networks discussion if I remember correctly. 2009-7 was adopted by the board at the same time as 2008-3: Community Networks in December 2009, it almost overtook 2008-3. ..... -- =============================================== 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 =============================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daveid at panix.com Tue Aug 16 21:49:53 2016 From: daveid at panix.com (David R Huberman) Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 21:49:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-ppml] Community Networks (Was Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I wrote: >> 2) In the first Public Policy Meeting this was presented, the topic of >> "cannot meet existing policy" was mostly centered around the criterion that >> existed of "must announce a single aggregte" into the DFZ. The presenter >> (Joshua King) indicated this was not possible for all community network >> implementations. >> >> Somewhere along the way between 2008 and today, that "announce one >> aggregate" requirement disappeared from NRPM. David Farmer replied: > Eliminating the "announce single aggregate" requirement from IPv6 policy > was Draft Policy 2009-7: Open Access To IPv6, spurred on by the Community > Networks discussion if I remember correctly. 2009-7 was adopted by the > board at the same time as 2008-3: Community Networks in December 2009, it > almost overtook 2008-3. Ah! Thank you, Mr Farmer! From owen at delong.com Wed Aug 17 14:43:34 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 11:43:34 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Community Networks (Was Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > On Aug 16, 2016, at 18:49 , David R Huberman wrote: > > > I wrote: > >>> 2) In the first Public Policy Meeting this was presented, the topic of >>> "cannot meet existing policy" was mostly centered around the criterion that >>> existed of "must announce a single aggregte" into the DFZ. The presenter >>> (Joshua King) indicated this was not possible for all community network >>> implementations. >>> >>> Somewhere along the way between 2008 and today, that "announce one >>> aggregate" requirement disappeared from NRPM. > > David Farmer replied: > >> Eliminating the "announce single aggregate" requirement from IPv6 policy >> was Draft Policy 2009-7: Open Access To IPv6, spurred on by the Community >> Networks discussion if I remember correctly. 2009-7 was adopted by the >> board at the same time as 2008-3: Community Networks in December 2009, it >> almost overtook 2008-3. > > Ah! Thank you, Mr Farmer! FWIW in 2016-6, I did not preserve the text because I felt that it no longer offered any advantages to the policy. I believe that the revised text as proposed provides all of the same benefits globally that the original text provided to a more limited set of areas. If anyone believes this is not the case or that the current text is problematic as a result, please speak up. My current hope is that we will be able to take this to Dallas as a recommended draft so that it may be adopted thereafter. Owen From farmer at umn.edu Wed Aug 17 15:25:52 2016 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 14:25:52 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Community Networks (Was Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Owen, I think you intended this to be in response to a different email in the thread, the one related to the Caribbean and rural text in the current Community Networks policy, and not anything to do with 2009-7: Open Access To IPv6. Thanks On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > FWIW in 2016-6, I did not preserve the text because I felt that it no > longer offered any advantages to the policy. > > I believe that the revised text as proposed provides all of the same > benefits globally that the original text provided to a more limited set of > areas. > > If anyone believes this is not the case or that the current text is > problematic as a result, please speak up. > > My current hope is that we will be able to take this to Dallas as a > recommended draft so that it may be adopted thereafter. > > Owen > > -- =============================================== 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 =============================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Aug 19 00:53:02 2016 From: narten at us.ibm.com (narten at us.ibm.com) Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 00:53:02 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201608190453.u7J4r3ng028042@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 7 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Aug 19 00:53:02 EDT 2016 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 42.86% | 3 | 43.07% | 35856 | farmer at umn.edu 14.29% | 1 | 29.25% | 24356 | rjletts at uw.edu 14.29% | 1 | 10.72% | 8923 | narten at us.ibm.com 14.29% | 1 | 8.85% | 7365 | owen at delong.com 14.29% | 1 | 8.12% | 6759 | daveid at panix.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 7 |100.00% | 83259 | Total From info at arin.net Tue Aug 23 11:48:39 2016 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:48:39 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - August 2016 Message-ID: <57BC7057.5060501@arin.net> In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 18 August 2016. The AC has advanced the following to Recommended Draft Policy status (will be posted separately as such): ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants The AC advances Draft Policies to Recommended Draft Policy status once they have been fully developed and meet ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy. Specifically, these principles are: > Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration > Technically Sound > Supported by the Community The AC is continuing to work on: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients) Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers Draft Policy ARIN-2016-2: Change timeframes for IPv4 requests to 24 months Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative simplified criteria for justifying small IPv4 transfers Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5: Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer Policy Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM The PDP can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From info at arin.net Tue Aug 23 11:58:50 2016 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:58:50 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants Message-ID: <57BC72BA.7090901@arin.net> On 18 August 2016, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following Draft Policy to Recommended Draft Policy status: Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants The text of the Recommended Draft Policy is below, and may also be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_4.html You are encouraged to discuss all Recommended Draft Policies on PPML prior to their presentation at the next ARIN Public Policy Consultation (PPC). PPML and PPC discussions are invaluable to the AC when determining community consensus. The PDP can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants Date: 23 August 2016 AC assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy: The proposal is technically sound and enables fair and impartial number policy by ensuring that new organizations have a mechanism to access at least a minimum amount of resources from the transfer market. The staff and legal review (as updated 8/19/2016) is non-controversial. There is support and no concerns have been raised by the community regarding the proposal on PPML or elsewhere. Problem Statement: New organizations without existing IPv4 space may not always be able to qualify for an initial allocation under NRPM 4.2, particularly if they are categorized as ISPs and subject to 4.2.2.1.1. Use of /24. Now that ARIN?s free pool is exhausted, 4.2.1.6. Immediate need states that ?These cases are exceptional?, but that is no longer correct. End user organizations requiring less a /24 of address space may also be unable to acquire space from their upstream ISP, and may instead need to receive a /24 from ARIN via transfer. Policy statement: Replace Section 4.2.2 with: 4.2.2. Initial allocation to ISPs ?All ISP organizations without direct assignments or allocations from ARIN qualify for an initial allocation of up to a /21, subject to ARIN?s minimum allocation size. Organizations may qualify for a larger initial allocation by documenting how the requested allocation will be utilized within 24 months for specified transfers, or three months otherwise. ISPs renumbering out of their previous address space will be given a reasonable amount of time to do so, and any blocks they are returning will not count against their utilization. Replace Section 4.3.2 to read: 4.3.2 Minimum assignment ARIN?s minimum assignment for end-user organizations is a /24. End-user organizations without direct assignments or allocations from ARIN qualify for an initial assignment of ARIN?s minimum assignment size. Replace the first two sentences of Section 4.3.3. Utilization rate to read: Organizations may qualify for a larger initial allocation by providing appropriate details to verify their 24-month growth projection for specified transfers, or 12 months otherwise. Resulting new section 4.3.3 will be: Organizations may qualify for a larger initial allocation, by providing appropriate details to verify their 24-month growth projection for specified transfers, or 12 months otherwise. The basic criterion that must be met is a 50% utilization rate within one year. A greater utilization rate may be required based on individual network requirements. Comments: Timetable for implementation: Immediate Anything else The text in 4.2.2 ?for specified transfers, or three months otherwise? and the text in 4.3.3 ?for specified transfers, or 12 months otherwise? should be stricken if ARIN-prop-227 is adopted. From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Aug 26 00:53:01 2016 From: narten at us.ibm.com (narten at us.ibm.com) Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 00:53:01 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201608260453.u7Q4r15X007161@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 3 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Aug 26 00:53:01 EDT 2016 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 66.67% | 2 | 64.82% | 16070 | info at arin.net 33.33% | 1 | 35.18% | 8723 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 3 |100.00% | 24793 | Total