From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Jan 1 00:53:02 2016 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2016 00:53:02 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201601010553.u015r2m6022795@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 2 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 1 00:53:02 EST 2016 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 50.00% | 1 | 76.43% | 22865 | milton at gatech.edu 50.00% | 1 | 23.57% | 7050 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 2 |100.00% | 29915 | Total From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Jan 8 00:53:02 2016 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 00:53:02 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201601080553.u085r3gv023692@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 1 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 8 00:53:02 EST 2016 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 1 |100.00% | 6760 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 1 |100.00% | 6760 | Total From info at arin.net Fri Jan 8 14:42:45 2016 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 14:42:45 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Board adopted new number policies (2015-1 and 2015-4) Message-ID: <56901135.1070007@arin.net> On 10 December 2015 the ARIN Board of Trustees adopted the following number policies: ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments ARIN-2015-4: Modify 8.2 section to better reflect how ARIN handles reorganizations These new policies will be implemented no later than 29 February 2016. This is in accordance with the staff assessment that rated the resource impact of them as minimal, requiring three months to implement. Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes are available at: https://www.arin.net/about_us/bot/index.html Draft Policy and Policy Proposal texts are available at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From info at arin.net Mon Jan 11 15:28:38 2016 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 15:28:38 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2015 In-Reply-To: <5679A3B6.8020202@arin.net> References: <5679A3B6.8020202@arin.net> Message-ID: <56941076.4020409@arin.net> > The AC abandoned 2015-8. Anyone dissatisfied with this decision may > initiate a petition. The deadline to begin a petition will be five > business days after the AC's draft meeting minutes are published. The minutes from the ARIN Advisory Council's 17 December 2015 meeting have been published: https://www.arin.net/about_us/ac/ac2015_1217.html The petition deadline is 19 January 2016. For more information on starting and participating in petitions, see PDP Petitions at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_petitions.html The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) On 12/22/15 2:25 PM, ARIN wrote: > In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN > Advisory Council (AC) met on 17 December 2015. > > Having found the following Draft Policy to be fully developed and > meeting ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy, the AC > recommended it for adoption (to be posted separately for discussion as a > Recommended Draft Policy): > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-11: Remove transfer language which only > applied pre-exhaustion of IPv4 pool > > The AC abandoned the following: > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-8: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users > > The AC provided the following statement, "The ARIN AC has voted to > abandon draft proposal ARIN-2015-8. Although a number of participants at > ARIN 36 and on the PPML indicated support for investigation of greater > harmonization of the services provided by ARIN to ISPs and End-Users, > this specific proposal had no substantial community > support. In fact, those who addressed themselves to the specific > proposal, rather than broader issue of fees charged to ISPs vs. > End-users or the types of services that ARIN should provide to each > class of clients, did not support the specific proposal itself. Based on > community feedback, we would suggest the broader issues be considered by > ARIN, as part of a review of services." > > The AC is continuing to work on: > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to > Specified Recipients) > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in > end-user IPv4 policy > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated > need for IPv4 transfers > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for > Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks > > The AC abandoned 2015-8. Anyone dissatisfied with this decision may > initiate a petition. The deadline to begin a petition will be five > business days after the AC's draft meeting minutes are published. For > more information on starting and participating in petitions, see PDP > Petitions at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_petitions.html > > Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Jan 15 00:53:02 2016 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 00:53:02 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201601150553.u0F5r2FW010649@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 3 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 15 00:53:01 EST 2016 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 66.67% | 2 | 67.18% | 13545 | info at arin.net 33.33% | 1 | 32.82% | 6618 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 3 |100.00% | 20163 | Total From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Jan 22 00:53:02 2016 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 00:53:02 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201601220553.u0M5r3Yg022847@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 1 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 22 00:53:02 EST 2016 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 1 |100.00% | 6765 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 1 |100.00% | 6765 | Total From farmer at umn.edu Wed Jan 27 17:54:11 2016 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 16:54:11 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-Day Utilization Requirement in End-User IPv4 Policy Message-ID: <56A94A93.2000806@umn.edu> The following is the proposed update for ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-Day Utilization Requirement in End-User IPv4 Policy based on strong support in Montreal. Beyond deleting the 25% bullet as the policy says, their are editorial changes as follows to the remaining text; - It looks weird to have single item bullet list, so merge the two remaining sentence fragments into a single sentence. - Change "are" to "is", since there is only one remaining criteria - Use of "criteria" as a singular is common usage, even though technically it's plural. - Resulting in "The basic criteria that must be met is a 50% utilization rate within one year." The remaining and resulting text for 4.3.3 is now included in the policy text, for editorial clarity. The original staff and legal suggested removing the RFC2050 reference and also pointed out that 4.2.3.6 also has a 25% immediate use clause and a RFC2050 reference. Feedback in Montreal was that deleting the 25% immediate use was a nice bite-sized change, and we shouldn't try to do more than that with this change, so those changes are not included at this time. Any additional feedback or comments are appreciated. Thanks --------- Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in end-user IPv4 policy Date: 27 January 2015 Problem Statement: End-user policy is intended to provide end-users with a one year supply of IP addresses. Qualification for a one-year supply requires the network operator to utilize at least 25% of the requested addresses within 30 days. This text is unrealistic and should be removed. First, it often takes longer than 30 days to stage equipment and start actually using the addresses. Second, growth is often not that regimented; the forecast is to use X addresses over the course of a year, not to use 25% of X within 30 days. Third, this policy text applies to additional address space requests. It is incompatible with the requirements of other additional address space request justification which indicates that 80% utilization of existing space is sufficient to justify new space. If a block is at 80%, then often (almost always?) the remaining 80% will be used over the next 30 days and longer. Therefore the operator cannot honestly state they will use 25% of the ADDITIONAL space within 30 days of receiving it; they're still trying to use their older block efficiently. Fourth, in the face of ARIN exhaustion, some ISPs are starting to not give out /24 (or larger) blocks. So the justification for the 25% rule that previously existed (and in fact, applied for many years) is no longer germane. Policy statement: Remove the 25% utilization criteria bullet point from NRPM 4.3.3. Resulting text: 4.3.3. Utilization rate Utilization rate of address space is a key factor in justifying a new assignment of IP address space. Requesters must show exactly how previous address assignments have been utilized and must provide appropriate details to verify their one-year growth projection. The basic criteria that must be met is a 50% utilization rate within one year. A greater utilization rate may be required based on individual network requirements. Please refer to RFC 2050 for more information on utilization guidelines. Comments: a.Timetable for implementation: Immediate b.Anything else -- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================ From owen at delong.com Wed Jan 27 20:41:40 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 17:41:40 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-Day Utilization Requirement in End-User IPv4 Policy In-Reply-To: <56A94A93.2000806@umn.edu> References: <56A94A93.2000806@umn.edu> Message-ID: While criteria as singular may not be an uncommon error, I see no reason to avoid the proper use of the word criterion. I propose changing to the following: ? The basic criterion that must be met is a 50% utilization rate within one year. ? Is there some perceived benefit to sticking with a common error? Owen > On Jan 27, 2016, at 14:54 , David Farmer wrote: > > The following is the proposed update for ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-Day Utilization Requirement in End-User IPv4 Policy based on strong support in Montreal. > > Beyond deleting the 25% bullet as the policy says, their are editorial changes as follows to the remaining text; > > - It looks weird to have single item bullet list, so merge the two remaining sentence fragments into a single sentence. > - Change "are" to "is", since there is only one remaining criteria > - Use of "criteria" as a singular is common usage, even though technically it's plural. > - Resulting in "The basic criteria that must be met is a 50% utilization rate within one year." > > The remaining and resulting text for 4.3.3 is now included in the policy text, for editorial clarity. The original staff and legal suggested removing the RFC2050 reference and also pointed out that > 4.2.3.6 also has a 25% immediate use clause and a RFC2050 reference. > > Feedback in Montreal was that deleting the 25% immediate use was a nice bite-sized change, and we shouldn't try to do more than that with this change, so those changes are not included at this time. > > Any additional feedback or comments are appreciated. > > Thanks > > --------- > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in end-user IPv4 policy > > Date: 27 January 2015 > > Problem Statement: > > End-user policy is intended to provide end-users with a one year supply of IP addresses. Qualification for a one-year supply requires the network operator to utilize at least 25% of the requested addresses within 30 days. This text is unrealistic and should be removed. > > First, it often takes longer than 30 days to stage equipment and start actually using the addresses. > > Second, growth is often not that regimented; the forecast is to use X addresses over the course of a year, not to use 25% of X within 30 days. > > Third, this policy text applies to additional address space requests. It is incompatible with the requirements of other additional address space request justification which indicates that 80% utilization of existing space is sufficient to justify new space. If a block is at 80%, then often (almost always?) the remaining 80% will be used over the next 30 days and longer. Therefore the operator cannot honestly state they will use 25% of the ADDITIONAL space within 30 days of receiving it; they're still trying to use their older block efficiently. > > Fourth, in the face of ARIN exhaustion, some ISPs are starting to not give out /24 (or larger) blocks. So the justification for the 25% rule that previously existed (and in fact, applied for many years) is no longer germane. > > Policy statement: > > Remove the 25% utilization criteria bullet point from NRPM 4.3.3. > > Resulting text: > > 4.3.3. Utilization rate > > Utilization rate of address space is a key factor in justifying a new > assignment of IP address space. Requesters must show exactly how > previous address assignments have been utilized and must provide > appropriate details to verify their one-year growth projection. > > The basic criteria that must be met is a 50% utilization rate within one year. > > A greater utilization rate may be required based on individual network > requirements. Please refer to RFC 2050 for more information on > utilization guidelines. > > Comments: > a.Timetable for implementation: Immediate > b.Anything else > > -- > ================================================ > David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 > ================================================ > _______________________________________________ > 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 bjones at vt.edu Thu Jan 28 08:55:49 2016 From: bjones at vt.edu (Brian Jones) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 08:55:49 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-Day Utilization Requirement in End-User IPv4 Policy In-Reply-To: <56A94A93.2000806@umn.edu> References: <56A94A93.2000806@umn.edu> Message-ID: Looks good to me Dave. I am okay with using criteria or criterion, however using the strict definition it looks as though criterion is the proper singular form. -- Brian On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 5:54 PM, David Farmer wrote: > The following is the proposed update for ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-Day > Utilization Requirement in End-User IPv4 Policy based on strong support in > Montreal. > > Beyond deleting the 25% bullet as the policy says, their are editorial > changes as follows to the remaining text; > > - It looks weird to have single item bullet list, so merge the two > remaining sentence fragments into a single sentence. > - Change "are" to "is", since there is only one remaining criteria > - Use of "criteria" as a singular is common usage, even though technically > it's plural. > - Resulting in "The basic criteria that must be met is a 50% utilization > rate within one year." > > The remaining and resulting text for 4.3.3 is now included in the policy > text, for editorial clarity. The original staff and legal suggested > removing the RFC2050 reference and also pointed out that > 4.2.3.6 also has a 25% immediate use clause and a RFC2050 reference. > > Feedback in Montreal was that deleting the 25% immediate use was a nice > bite-sized change, and we shouldn't try to do more than that with this > change, so those changes are not included at this time. > > Any additional feedback or comments are appreciated. > > Thanks > > --------- > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in > end-user IPv4 policy > > Date: 27 January 2015 > > Problem Statement: > > End-user policy is intended to provide end-users with a one year supply of > IP addresses. Qualification for a one-year supply requires the network > operator to utilize at least 25% of the requested addresses within 30 days. > This text is unrealistic and should be removed. > > First, it often takes longer than 30 days to stage equipment and start > actually using the addresses. > > Second, growth is often not that regimented; the forecast is to use X > addresses over the course of a year, not to use 25% of X within 30 days. > > Third, this policy text applies to additional address space requests. It > is incompatible with the requirements of other additional address space > request justification which indicates that 80% utilization of existing > space is sufficient to justify new space. If a block is at 80%, then often > (almost always?) the remaining 80% will be used over the next 30 days and > longer. Therefore the operator cannot honestly state they will use 25% of > the ADDITIONAL space within 30 days of receiving it; they're still trying > to use their older block efficiently. > > Fourth, in the face of ARIN exhaustion, some ISPs are starting to not give > out /24 (or larger) blocks. So the justification for the 25% rule that > previously existed (and in fact, applied for many years) is no longer > germane. > > Policy statement: > > Remove the 25% utilization criteria bullet point from NRPM 4.3.3. > > Resulting text: > > 4.3.3. Utilization rate > > Utilization rate of address space is a key factor in justifying a new > assignment of IP address space. Requesters must show exactly how > previous address assignments have been utilized and must provide > appropriate details to verify their one-year growth projection. > > The basic criteria that must be met is a 50% utilization rate within one > year. > > A greater utilization rate may be required based on individual network > requirements. Please refer to RFC 2050 for more information on > utilization guidelines. > > Comments: > a.Timetable for implementation: Immediate > b.Anything else > > -- > ================================================ > David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 > ================================================ > _______________________________________________ > 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 mike at iptrading.com Thu Jan 28 15:55:32 2016 From: mike at iptrading.com (Mike Burns) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 15:55:32 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-Day Utilization Requirement in End-User IPv4 Policy In-Reply-To: References: <56A94A93.2000806@umn.edu> Message-ID: <0a1001d15a0e$3a22b490$ae681db0$@iptrading.com> I agree with Owen. I support the policy either way. Regards, Mike -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 8:42 PM To: David Farmer Cc: ARIN PPML Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-Day Utilization Requirement in End-User IPv4 Policy While criteria as singular may not be an uncommon error, I see no reason to avoid the proper use of the word criterion. I propose changing to the following: ? The basic criterion that must be met is a 50% utilization rate within one year. ? Is there some perceived benefit to sticking with a common error? Owen > On Jan 27, 2016, at 14:54 , David Farmer wrote: > > The following is the proposed update for ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-Day Utilization Requirement in End-User IPv4 Policy based on strong support in Montreal. > > Beyond deleting the 25% bullet as the policy says, their are editorial > changes as follows to the remaining text; > > - It looks weird to have single item bullet list, so merge the two remaining sentence fragments into a single sentence. > - Change "are" to "is", since there is only one remaining criteria > - Use of "criteria" as a singular is common usage, even though technically it's plural. > - Resulting in "The basic criteria that must be met is a 50% utilization rate within one year." > > The remaining and resulting text for 4.3.3 is now included in the > policy text, for editorial clarity. The original staff and legal > suggested removing the RFC2050 reference and also pointed out that > 4.2.3.6 also has a 25% immediate use clause and a RFC2050 reference. > > Feedback in Montreal was that deleting the 25% immediate use was a nice bite-sized change, and we shouldn't try to do more than that with this change, so those changes are not included at this time. > > Any additional feedback or comments are appreciated. > > Thanks > > --------- > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in > end-user IPv4 policy > > Date: 27 January 2015 > > Problem Statement: > > End-user policy is intended to provide end-users with a one year supply of IP addresses. Qualification for a one-year supply requires the network operator to utilize at least 25% of the requested addresses within 30 days. This text is unrealistic and should be removed. > > First, it often takes longer than 30 days to stage equipment and start actually using the addresses. > > Second, growth is often not that regimented; the forecast is to use X addresses over the course of a year, not to use 25% of X within 30 days. > > Third, this policy text applies to additional address space requests. It is incompatible with the requirements of other additional address space request justification which indicates that 80% utilization of existing space is sufficient to justify new space. If a block is at 80%, then often (almost always?) the remaining 80% will be used over the next 30 days and longer. Therefore the operator cannot honestly state they will use 25% of the ADDITIONAL space within 30 days of receiving it; they're still trying to use their older block efficiently. > > Fourth, in the face of ARIN exhaustion, some ISPs are starting to not give out /24 (or larger) blocks. So the justification for the 25% rule that previously existed (and in fact, applied for many years) is no longer germane. > > Policy statement: > > Remove the 25% utilization criteria bullet point from NRPM 4.3.3. > > Resulting text: > > 4.3.3. Utilization rate > > Utilization rate of address space is a key factor in justifying a new > assignment of IP address space. Requesters must show exactly how > previous address assignments have been utilized and must provide > appropriate details to verify their one-year growth projection. > > The basic criteria that must be met is a 50% utilization rate within one year. > > A greater utilization rate may be required based on individual network > requirements. Please refer to RFC 2050 for more information on > utilization guidelines. > > Comments: > a.Timetable for implementation: Immediate b.Anything else > > -- > ================================================ > David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 > ================================================ > _______________________________________________ > 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. From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com Thu Jan 28 15:59:57 2016 From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 20:59:57 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-Day Utilization Requirement in End-User IPv4 Policy In-Reply-To: <0a1001d15a0e$3a22b490$ae681db0$@iptrading.com> References: <56A94A93.2000806@umn.edu> <0a1001d15a0e$3a22b490$ae681db0$@iptrading.com> Message-ID: <790f7687bab045cfbab554a2bf67a3a7@eni-mail1.eclipse-networks.com> +1 Steven Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA? 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099- Office ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. ??????? Conquering Complex Networks? -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Mike Burns Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 3:56 PM To: 'Owen DeLong' ; 'David Farmer' Cc: 'ARIN PPML' Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-Day Utilization Requirement in End-User IPv4 Policy I agree with Owen. I support the policy either way. Regards, Mike -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 8:42 PM To: David Farmer Cc: ARIN PPML Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-Day Utilization Requirement in End-User IPv4 Policy While criteria as singular may not be an uncommon error, I see no reason to avoid the proper use of the word criterion. I propose changing to the following: ? The basic criterion that must be met is a 50% utilization rate within one year. ? Is there some perceived benefit to sticking with a common error? Owen > On Jan 27, 2016, at 14:54 , David Farmer wrote: > > The following is the proposed update for ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-Day Utilization Requirement in End-User IPv4 Policy based on strong support in Montreal. > > Beyond deleting the 25% bullet as the policy says, their are editorial > changes as follows to the remaining text; > > - It looks weird to have single item bullet list, so merge the two remaining sentence fragments into a single sentence. > - Change "are" to "is", since there is only one remaining criteria > - Use of "criteria" as a singular is common usage, even though technically it's plural. > - Resulting in "The basic criteria that must be met is a 50% utilization rate within one year." > > The remaining and resulting text for 4.3.3 is now included in the > policy text, for editorial clarity. The original staff and legal > suggested removing the RFC2050 reference and also pointed out that > 4.2.3.6 also has a 25% immediate use clause and a RFC2050 reference. > > Feedback in Montreal was that deleting the 25% immediate use was a nice bite-sized change, and we shouldn't try to do more than that with this change, so those changes are not included at this time. > > Any additional feedback or comments are appreciated. > > Thanks > > --------- > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in > end-user IPv4 policy > > Date: 27 January 2015 > > Problem Statement: > > End-user policy is intended to provide end-users with a one year supply of IP addresses. Qualification for a one-year supply requires the network operator to utilize at least 25% of the requested addresses within 30 days. This text is unrealistic and should be removed. > > First, it often takes longer than 30 days to stage equipment and start actually using the addresses. > > Second, growth is often not that regimented; the forecast is to use X addresses over the course of a year, not to use 25% of X within 30 days. > > Third, this policy text applies to additional address space requests. It is incompatible with the requirements of other additional address space request justification which indicates that 80% utilization of existing space is sufficient to justify new space. If a block is at 80%, then often (almost always?) the remaining 80% will be used over the next 30 days and longer. Therefore the operator cannot honestly state they will use 25% of the ADDITIONAL space within 30 days of receiving it; they're still trying to use their older block efficiently. > > Fourth, in the face of ARIN exhaustion, some ISPs are starting to not give out /24 (or larger) blocks. So the justification for the 25% rule that previously existed (and in fact, applied for many years) is no longer germane. > > Policy statement: > > Remove the 25% utilization criteria bullet point from NRPM 4.3.3. > > Resulting text: > > 4.3.3. Utilization rate > > Utilization rate of address space is a key factor in justifying a new > assignment of IP address space. Requesters must show exactly how > previous address assignments have been utilized and must provide > appropriate details to verify their one-year growth projection. > > The basic criteria that must be met is a 50% utilization rate within one year. > > A greater utilization rate may be required based on individual network > requirements. Please refer to RFC 2050 for more information on > utilization guidelines. > > Comments: > a.Timetable for implementation: Immediate b.Anything else > > -- > ================================================ > David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 > ================================================ > _______________________________________________ > 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. _______________________________________________ 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 jschiller at google.com Thu Jan 28 16:52:04 2016 From: jschiller at google.com (Jason Schiller) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 16:52:04 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-Day Utilization Requirement in End-User IPv4 Policy In-Reply-To: References: <56A94A93.2000806@umn.edu> Message-ID: I support the removal of the 30 day utilization as it is unreasonable for any larger end-site, who may have a real need for say a /16, with 65,000 desktops arriving on a loading doc next week, but an inability to unbox, configure and deploy 16,384 to the various office locations in 30 days. However, this is the only provision that has a real, tangible, and verifiable claim. Without this check justified need for end users simply becomes a 1 year future looking projection, and with sufficient arm waving an easy end run around justified need for any end user with no IP space or if they are efficiently using what they currently hold. I could get on board if the maximum sized block permitted on a purely future looking projection was a /24 and you had to use it prior to getting more. I could certainly get on board if there were some other tangible and verifiable claim to show there was a real commitment to use half the address space within one year. __Jason On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Brian Jones wrote: > Looks good to me Dave. I am okay with using criteria or criterion, however > using the strict definition it looks as though criterion is the proper > singular form. > > -- > Brian > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 5:54 PM, David Farmer wrote: > >> The following is the proposed update for ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-Day >> Utilization Requirement in End-User IPv4 Policy based on strong support in >> Montreal. >> >> Beyond deleting the 25% bullet as the policy says, their are editorial >> changes as follows to the remaining text; >> >> - It looks weird to have single item bullet list, so merge the two >> remaining sentence fragments into a single sentence. >> - Change "are" to "is", since there is only one remaining criteria >> - Use of "criteria" as a singular is common usage, even though >> technically it's plural. >> - Resulting in "The basic criteria that must be met is a 50% utilization >> rate within one year." >> >> The remaining and resulting text for 4.3.3 is now included in the policy >> text, for editorial clarity. The original staff and legal suggested >> removing the RFC2050 reference and also pointed out that >> 4.2.3.6 also has a 25% immediate use clause and a RFC2050 reference. >> >> Feedback in Montreal was that deleting the 25% immediate use was a nice >> bite-sized change, and we shouldn't try to do more than that with this >> change, so those changes are not included at this time. >> >> Any additional feedback or comments are appreciated. >> >> Thanks >> >> --------- >> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in >> end-user IPv4 policy >> >> Date: 27 January 2015 >> >> Problem Statement: >> >> End-user policy is intended to provide end-users with a one year supply >> of IP addresses. Qualification for a one-year supply requires the network >> operator to utilize at least 25% of the requested addresses within 30 days. >> This text is unrealistic and should be removed. >> >> First, it often takes longer than 30 days to stage equipment and start >> actually using the addresses. >> >> Second, growth is often not that regimented; the forecast is to use X >> addresses over the course of a year, not to use 25% of X within 30 days. >> >> Third, this policy text applies to additional address space requests. It >> is incompatible with the requirements of other additional address space >> request justification which indicates that 80% utilization of existing >> space is sufficient to justify new space. If a block is at 80%, then often >> (almost always?) the remaining 80% will be used over the next 30 days and >> longer. Therefore the operator cannot honestly state they will use 25% of >> the ADDITIONAL space within 30 days of receiving it; they're still trying >> to use their older block efficiently. >> >> Fourth, in the face of ARIN exhaustion, some ISPs are starting to not >> give out /24 (or larger) blocks. So the justification for the 25% rule that >> previously existed (and in fact, applied for many years) is no longer >> germane. >> >> Policy statement: >> >> Remove the 25% utilization criteria bullet point from NRPM 4.3.3. >> >> Resulting text: >> >> 4.3.3. Utilization rate >> >> Utilization rate of address space is a key factor in justifying a new >> assignment of IP address space. Requesters must show exactly how >> previous address assignments have been utilized and must provide >> appropriate details to verify their one-year growth projection. >> >> The basic criteria that must be met is a 50% utilization rate within one >> year. >> >> A greater utilization rate may be required based on individual network >> requirements. Please refer to RFC 2050 for more information on >> utilization guidelines. >> >> Comments: >> a.Timetable for implementation: Immediate >> b.Anything else >> >> -- >> ================================================ >> David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu >> Office of Information Technology >> University of Minnesota >> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 >> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 >> ================================================ >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. > -- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From info at arin.net Thu Jan 28 17:23:30 2016 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 17:23:30 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - January 2016 Message-ID: <56AA94E2.3000705@arin.net> In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 22 January 2016. The AC is continuing to work on: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients) Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in end-user IPv4 policy Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-11: Remove transfer language which only applied pre-exhaustion of IPv4 pool Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Jan 29 00:53:03 2016 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:53:03 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201601290553.u0T5r38m012624@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 8 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 29 00:53:03 EST 2016 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 12.50% | 1 | 22.67% | 21456 | jschiller at google.com 12.50% | 1 | 17.85% | 16890 | bjones at vt.edu 12.50% | 1 | 13.79% | 13049 | sryerse at eclipse-networks.com 12.50% | 1 | 11.53% | 10915 | farmer at umn.edu 12.50% | 1 | 11.03% | 10437 | mike at iptrading.com 12.50% | 1 | 10.09% | 9545 | owen at delong.com 12.50% | 1 | 7.09% | 6708 | narten at us.ibm.com 12.50% | 1 | 5.95% | 5631 | info at arin.net --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 8 |100.00% | 94631 | Total From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jan 29 08:27:59 2016 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 08:27:59 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-Day Utilization Requirement in End-User IPv4 Policy In-Reply-To: References: <56A94A93.2000806@umn.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Jason Schiller wrote: > I support the removal of the 30 day utilization as it is unreasonable for > any larger end-site, who may have a real need for say a /16, with 65,000 > desktops arriving on a loading doc next week, but an inability to unbox, > configure and deploy 16,384 to the various office locations in 30 days. > > agreed. > However, this is the only provision that has a real, tangible, and > verifiable claim. Without this check justified need for end users simply > becomes a 1 year future looking projection, and with sufficient arm waving > an easy end run around justified need for any end user with no IP space or > if they are efficiently using what they currently hold. > > good point! > I could get on board if the maximum sized block permitted on a purely > future looking projection was a /24 and you had to use it prior to getting > more. > > +1 > I could certainly get on board if there were some other tangible and > verifiable claim to show there was a real commitment to use half the > address space within one year. > > Would this language suffice, or would we need a metric of some sort? Regards, McTim > __Jason > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Brian Jones wrote: > >> Looks good to me Dave. I am okay with using criteria or criterion, >> however using the strict definition it looks as though criterion is the >> proper singular form. >> >> -- >> Brian >> >> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 5:54 PM, David Farmer wrote: >> >>> The following is the proposed update for ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-Day >>> Utilization Requirement in End-User IPv4 Policy based on strong support in >>> Montreal. >>> >>> Beyond deleting the 25% bullet as the policy says, their are editorial >>> changes as follows to the remaining text; >>> >>> - It looks weird to have single item bullet list, so merge the two >>> remaining sentence fragments into a single sentence. >>> - Change "are" to "is", since there is only one remaining criteria >>> - Use of "criteria" as a singular is common usage, even though >>> technically it's plural. >>> - Resulting in "The basic criteria that must be met is a 50% utilization >>> rate within one year." >>> >>> The remaining and resulting text for 4.3.3 is now included in the policy >>> text, for editorial clarity. The original staff and legal suggested >>> removing the RFC2050 reference and also pointed out that >>> 4.2.3.6 also has a 25% immediate use clause and a RFC2050 reference. >>> >>> Feedback in Montreal was that deleting the 25% immediate use was a nice >>> bite-sized change, and we shouldn't try to do more than that with this >>> change, so those changes are not included at this time. >>> >>> Any additional feedback or comments are appreciated. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> --------- >>> >>> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in >>> end-user IPv4 policy >>> >>> Date: 27 January 2015 >>> >>> Problem Statement: >>> >>> End-user policy is intended to provide end-users with a one year supply >>> of IP addresses. Qualification for a one-year supply requires the network >>> operator to utilize at least 25% of the requested addresses within 30 days. >>> This text is unrealistic and should be removed. >>> >>> First, it often takes longer than 30 days to stage equipment and start >>> actually using the addresses. >>> >>> Second, growth is often not that regimented; the forecast is to use X >>> addresses over the course of a year, not to use 25% of X within 30 days. >>> >>> Third, this policy text applies to additional address space requests. It >>> is incompatible with the requirements of other additional address space >>> request justification which indicates that 80% utilization of existing >>> space is sufficient to justify new space. If a block is at 80%, then often >>> (almost always?) the remaining 80% will be used over the next 30 days and >>> longer. Therefore the operator cannot honestly state they will use 25% of >>> the ADDITIONAL space within 30 days of receiving it; they're still trying >>> to use their older block efficiently. >>> >>> Fourth, in the face of ARIN exhaustion, some ISPs are starting to not >>> give out /24 (or larger) blocks. So the justification for the 25% rule that >>> previously existed (and in fact, applied for many years) is no longer >>> germane. >>> >>> Policy statement: >>> >>> Remove the 25% utilization criteria bullet point from NRPM 4.3.3. >>> >>> Resulting text: >>> >>> 4.3.3. Utilization rate >>> >>> Utilization rate of address space is a key factor in justifying a new >>> assignment of IP address space. Requesters must show exactly how >>> previous address assignments have been utilized and must provide >>> appropriate details to verify their one-year growth projection. >>> >>> The basic criteria that must be met is a 50% utilization rate within one >>> year. >>> >>> A greater utilization rate may be required based on individual network >>> requirements. Please refer to RFC 2050 for more information on >>> utilization guidelines. >>> >>> Comments: >>> a.Timetable for implementation: Immediate >>> b.Anything else >>> >>> -- >>> ================================================ >>> David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu >>> Office of Information Technology >>> University of Minnesota >>> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 >>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 >>> ================================================ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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. >> > > > > -- > _______________________________________________________ > Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jschiller at google.com Fri Jan 29 11:00:27 2016 From: jschiller at google.com (Jason Schiller) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 11:00:27 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-Day Utilization Requirement in End-User IPv4 Policy In-Reply-To: References: <56A94A93.2000806@umn.edu> Message-ID: McTim, WRT some other tangible and verifiable claim to show there was a real commitment to use half the address space within one year... I think there are 3 choices: 1. Very vague Something like "there must be some tangible and verifiable claim to show there was a real commitment to use half the address space within one year and not just a future projection or business case" 2. Open ended with some guidance for ARIN staff: Something like "there must be some tangible and verifiable claim to show there was a real commitment to use half the address space within one year and not just a future projection or business case. Some examples include: - list of equipment in hand to be numbered counting at least 25% of requested IP size - invoices showing equipment purchases demonstrating a commitment to buy equipment to be numbered counting at least 25% of requested IP size - invoices showing equipment purchases demonstrating a commitment to buy equipment to be numbered counting at least 50% of requested IP size within one year - lease agreements for real estate supporting equipment that is appropratly sized to support equipment to be numbered counting at least 50% of requested IP size 3. specific criterion ---- I don't know what it the right answer here, and suspect it has more to do with what the community is comfortable with. On one end of the spectrum is choice 1. This allows ARIN to do the right thing. But this also is not clear about what the community expects, and ARIN may act in a way that is counter to what is anticipated, and may seem like ARIN is being arbitrary or has too much leeway to screw with requestors. The opposite end of the spectrum is choice 3. This sets a very clear list of what qualifies. Hammering out that list may be very difficult, and it is unlikely to be complete. This will leave little or no room for ARIN to do the right thing and approve a request that is justified, but not one of the criterion listed. Choice 2 is the middle ground. Where we have a not necessarily complete list of criterion (so somewhat less difficulty in drawing up the list) that creates a very clear expectation of what ARIN should accept (and reduces the possibility that ARIN may act in a way that is counter to what is anticipated, and may seem like ARIN is being arbitrary or has too much leeway to screw with requestors) with respect to criterion clearly defined, while also allowing ARIN to do the right thing with similar types of proof that are not explicitly listed as criterion (this has somewhat higher risk that ARIN may act in a way that is counter to what is anticipated, and may seem like ARIN is being arbitrary or has too much leeway to screw with requestors, but less risk than option 1 as the criterion should serve as good guidance) So two open questions to the community? 1. Is the community most comfortable with: A. totally vague and open-ended such as "there must be some tangible and verifiable claim to show there was a real commitment to use half the address space within one year and not just a future projection or business case" B. A vague statement with some guidance as to some acceptable forms of tangible verifiable proof of a real commitment to use half the IP address within one year. C. A very clear list of what proof is considered acceptable 2. If the community prefers B. guidance or C. a very clear list then what sort of things would the community like to see on that list? On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 8:27 AM, McTim wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Jason Schiller > wrote: > >> I support the removal of the 30 day utilization as it is unreasonable for >> any larger end-site, who may have a real need for say a /16, with 65,000 >> desktops arriving on a loading doc next week, but an inability to unbox, >> configure and deploy 16,384 to the various office locations in 30 days. >> >> > agreed. > > >> However, this is the only provision that has a real, tangible, and >> verifiable claim. Without this check justified need for end users simply >> becomes a 1 year future looking projection, and with sufficient arm waving >> an easy end run around justified need for any end user with no IP space or >> if they are efficiently using what they currently hold. >> >> > good point! > > >> I could get on board if the maximum sized block permitted on a purely >> future looking projection was a /24 and you had to use it prior to getting >> more. >> >> > +1 > > >> I could certainly get on board if there were some other tangible and >> verifiable claim to show there was a real commitment to use half the >> address space within one year. >> >> > Would this language suffice, or would we need a metric of some sort? > > > Regards, > > McTim > > >> __Jason >> >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Brian Jones wrote: >> >>> Looks good to me Dave. I am okay with using criteria or criterion, >>> however using the strict definition it looks as though criterion is the >>> proper singular form. >>> >>> -- >>> Brian >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 5:54 PM, David Farmer wrote: >>> >>>> The following is the proposed update for ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-Day >>>> Utilization Requirement in End-User IPv4 Policy based on strong support in >>>> Montreal. >>>> >>>> Beyond deleting the 25% bullet as the policy says, their are editorial >>>> changes as follows to the remaining text; >>>> >>>> - It looks weird to have single item bullet list, so merge the two >>>> remaining sentence fragments into a single sentence. >>>> - Change "are" to "is", since there is only one remaining criteria >>>> - Use of "criteria" as a singular is common usage, even though >>>> technically it's plural. >>>> - Resulting in "The basic criteria that must be met is a 50% >>>> utilization rate within one year." >>>> >>>> The remaining and resulting text for 4.3.3 is now included in the >>>> policy text, for editorial clarity. The original staff and legal suggested >>>> removing the RFC2050 reference and also pointed out that >>>> 4.2.3.6 also has a 25% immediate use clause and a RFC2050 reference. >>>> >>>> Feedback in Montreal was that deleting the 25% immediate use was a nice >>>> bite-sized change, and we shouldn't try to do more than that with this >>>> change, so those changes are not included at this time. >>>> >>>> Any additional feedback or comments are appreciated. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> --------- >>>> >>>> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in >>>> end-user IPv4 policy >>>> >>>> Date: 27 January 2015 >>>> >>>> Problem Statement: >>>> >>>> End-user policy is intended to provide end-users with a one year supply >>>> of IP addresses. Qualification for a one-year supply requires the network >>>> operator to utilize at least 25% of the requested addresses within 30 days. >>>> This text is unrealistic and should be removed. >>>> >>>> First, it often takes longer than 30 days to stage equipment and start >>>> actually using the addresses. >>>> >>>> Second, growth is often not that regimented; the forecast is to use X >>>> addresses over the course of a year, not to use 25% of X within 30 days. >>>> >>>> Third, this policy text applies to additional address space requests. >>>> It is incompatible with the requirements of other additional address space >>>> request justification which indicates that 80% utilization of existing >>>> space is sufficient to justify new space. If a block is at 80%, then often >>>> (almost always?) the remaining 80% will be used over the next 30 days and >>>> longer. Therefore the operator cannot honestly state they will use 25% of >>>> the ADDITIONAL space within 30 days of receiving it; they're still trying >>>> to use their older block efficiently. >>>> >>>> Fourth, in the face of ARIN exhaustion, some ISPs are starting to not >>>> give out /24 (or larger) blocks. So the justification for the 25% rule that >>>> previously existed (and in fact, applied for many years) is no longer >>>> germane. >>>> >>>> Policy statement: >>>> >>>> Remove the 25% utilization criteria bullet point from NRPM 4.3.3. >>>> >>>> Resulting text: >>>> >>>> 4.3.3. Utilization rate >>>> >>>> Utilization rate of address space is a key factor in justifying a new >>>> assignment of IP address space. Requesters must show exactly how >>>> previous address assignments have been utilized and must provide >>>> appropriate details to verify their one-year growth projection. >>>> >>>> The basic criteria that must be met is a 50% utilization rate within >>>> one year. >>>> >>>> A greater utilization rate may be required based on individual network >>>> requirements. Please refer to RFC 2050 for more information on >>>> utilization guidelines. >>>> >>>> Comments: >>>> a.Timetable for implementation: Immediate >>>> b.Anything else >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ================================================ >>>> David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu >>>> Office of Information Technology >>>> University of Minnesota >>>> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 >>>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 >>>> ================================================ >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> _______________________________________________________ >> Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. >> > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route > indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > -- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrew.dul at quark.net Fri Jan 29 12:19:01 2016 From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 09:19:01 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-Day Utilization Requirement in End-User IPv4 Policy In-Reply-To: References: <56A94A93.2000806@umn.edu> Message-ID: <56AB9F05.7030702@quark.net> I would think that ARIN staff would already apply a "show me tangible evidence requirement" to a 50% within a year requirement. My understanding is that that is current ARIN staff practice for new organizations requires them to show evidence they will actually use the IPv4 addresses on an operational network. I don't think removing the immediate/30-day requirement would cause a shift in ARIN operational policy to remove the practice of showing documentation to substantiate the use of the addresses. Perhaps ARIN staff could comment on the current operational practices for demonstrating usage for new end-users, if that includes a "tangible evidence requirement"? And if the removal of the "immediate" usage of 25% would cause ARIN staff in their implementation to not conduct such a requirement on the 50% within one year test. Andrew On 1/29/2016 8:00 AM, Jason Schiller wrote: > McTim, > > WRT some other tangible and verifiable claim to show there was a real > commitment to use half the address space within one year... > > I think there are 3 choices: > > 1. Very vague > > Something like "there must be some tangible and verifiable claim to > show there was a real commitment to use half the address space within > one year and not just a future projection or business case" > > > 2. Open ended with some guidance for ARIN staff: > > Something like "there must be some tangible and verifiable claim to > show there was a real commitment to use half the address space within > one year and not just a future projection or business case. Some > examples include: > - list of equipment in hand to be numbered counting at least 25% of > requested IP size > - invoices showing equipment purchases demonstrating a commitment to > buy equipment to be numbered counting at least 25% of requested IP size > - invoices showing equipment purchases demonstrating a commitment to > buy equipment to be numbered counting at least 50% of requested IP > size within one year > - lease agreements for real estate supporting equipment that is > appropratly sized to support equipment to be numbered counting at > least 50% of requested IP size > > 3. specific criterion > > ---- > > I don't know what it the right answer here, and suspect it has more to > do with what the community is comfortable with. > > On one end of the spectrum is choice 1. This allows ARIN to do the > right thing. But this also is not clear about what the community > expects, and ARIN may act in a way that is counter to what is > anticipated, and may seem like ARIN is being arbitrary or has too much > leeway to screw with requestors. > > The opposite end of the spectrum is choice 3. This sets a very clear > list of what qualifies. Hammering out that list may be very > difficult, and it is unlikely to be complete. This will leave little > or no room for ARIN to do the right thing and approve a request that > is justified, but not one of the criterion listed. > > Choice 2 is the middle ground. Where we have a not necessarily > complete list of criterion (so somewhat less difficulty in drawing up > the list) that creates a very clear expectation of what ARIN should > accept (and reduces the possibility that ARIN may act in a way that is > counter to what is anticipated, and may seem like ARIN is being > arbitrary or has too much leeway to screw with requestors) with > respect to criterion clearly defined, while also allowing ARIN to do > the right thing with similar types of proof that are not explicitly > listed as criterion (this has somewhat higher risk that ARIN may act > in a way that is counter to what is anticipated, and may seem like > ARIN is being arbitrary or has too much leeway to screw with > requestors, but less risk than option 1 as the criterion should serve > as good guidance) > > > So two open questions to the community? > > 1. Is the community most comfortable with: > A. totally vague and open-ended such as "there must be some > tangible and verifiable claim to show there was a real commitment to > use half the address space within one year and not just a future > projection or business case" > > B. A vague statement with some guidance as to some acceptable forms > of tangible verifiable proof of a real commitment to use half the IP > address within one year. > > C. A very clear list of what proof is considered acceptable > > > 2. If the community prefers B. guidance or C. a very clear list then > what sort of things would the community like to see on that list? > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 8:27 AM, McTim > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Jason Schiller > > wrote: > > I support the removal of the 30 day utilization as it is > unreasonable for any larger end-site, who may have a real need > for say a /16, with 65,000 desktops arriving on a loading doc > next week, but an inability to unbox, configure and deploy > 16,384 to the various office locations in 30 days. > > > agreed. > > However, this is the only provision that has a real, tangible, > and verifiable claim. Without this check justified need for > end users simply becomes a 1 year future looking projection, > and with sufficient arm waving an easy end run around > justified need for any end user with no IP space or if they > are efficiently using what they currently hold. > > > good point! > > I could get on board if the maximum sized block permitted on a > purely future looking projection was a /24 and you had to use > it prior to getting more. > > > +1 > > I could certainly get on board if there were some other > tangible and verifiable claim to show there was a real > commitment to use half the address space within one year. > > > Would this language suffice, or would we need a metric of some sort? > > > Regards, > > McTim > > __Jason > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Brian Jones > wrote: > > Looks good to me Dave. I am okay with using criteria or > criterion, however using the strict definition it looks as > though criterion is the proper singular form. > > -- > Brian > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 5:54 PM, David Farmer > > wrote: > > The following is the proposed update for ARIN-2015-3: > Remove 30-Day Utilization Requirement in End-User IPv4 > Policy based on strong support in Montreal. > > Beyond deleting the 25% bullet as the policy says, > their are editorial changes as follows to the > remaining text; > > - It looks weird to have single item bullet list, so > merge the two remaining sentence fragments into a > single sentence. > - Change "are" to "is", since there is only one > remaining criteria > - Use of "criteria" as a singular is common usage, > even though technically it's plural. > - Resulting in "The basic criteria that must be met is > a 50% utilization rate within one year." > > The remaining and resulting text for 4.3.3 is now > included in the policy text, for editorial clarity. > The original staff and legal suggested removing the > RFC2050 reference and also pointed out that > 4.2.3.6 also has a 25% immediate use clause and a > RFC2050 reference. > > Feedback in Montreal was that deleting the 25% > immediate use was a nice bite-sized change, and we > shouldn't try to do more than that with this change, > so those changes are not included at this time. > > Any additional feedback or comments are appreciated. > > Thanks > > --------- > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization > requirement in end-user IPv4 policy > > Date: 27 January 2015 > > Problem Statement: > > End-user policy is intended to provide end-users with > a one year supply of IP addresses. Qualification for a > one-year supply requires the network operator to > utilize at least 25% of the requested addresses within > 30 days. This text is unrealistic and should be removed. > > First, it often takes longer than 30 days to stage > equipment and start actually using the addresses. > > Second, growth is often not that regimented; the > forecast is to use X addresses over the course of a > year, not to use 25% of X within 30 days. > > Third, this policy text applies to additional address > space requests. It is incompatible with the > requirements of other additional address space request > justification which indicates that 80% utilization of > existing space is sufficient to justify new space. If > a block is at 80%, then often (almost always?) the > remaining 80% will be used over the next 30 days and > longer. Therefore the operator cannot honestly state > they will use 25% of the ADDITIONAL space within 30 > days of receiving it; they're still trying to use > their older block efficiently. > > Fourth, in the face of ARIN exhaustion, some ISPs are > starting to not give out /24 (or larger) blocks. So > the justification for the 25% rule that previously > existed (and in fact, applied for many years) is no > longer germane. > > Policy statement: > > Remove the 25% utilization criteria bullet point from > NRPM 4.3.3. > > Resulting text: > > 4.3.3. Utilization rate > > Utilization rate of address space is a key factor in > justifying a new > assignment of IP address space. Requesters must show > exactly how > previous address assignments have been utilized and > must provide > appropriate details to verify their one-year growth > projection. > > The basic criteria that must be met is a 50% > utilization rate within one year. > > A greater utilization rate may be required based on > individual network > requirements. Please refer to RFC 2050 for more > information on > utilization guidelines. > > Comments: > a.Timetable for implementation: Immediate > b.Anything else > > -- > ================================================ > David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu > > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 > > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 > > ================================================ > _______________________________________________ > 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. > > > > > -- > _______________________________________________________ > Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com > |571-266-0006 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. > A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > > > -- > _______________________________________________________ > Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com > |571-266-0006 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 rjletts at uw.edu Fri Jan 29 14:50:09 2016 From: rjletts at uw.edu (Richard J. Letts) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 19:50:09 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-Day Utilization Requirement in End-User IPv4 Policy In-Reply-To: <56AB9F05.7030702@quark.net> References: <56A94A93.2000806@umn.edu> <56AB9F05.7030702@quark.net> Message-ID: Why are we adding more rules for IPv4 space? a) It is almost impossible to get space in a reasonable timescale without paying (more than just the ARIN fees) for it b) If you have to pay for the space anyway you are not going to buy something that you can't use (unless you are speculating), and I think a /16 goes for over half a million.. c) If you are giving public IP address to 64K new PC's then rationally asking why you are not putting them being a NAT appliance and giving you a /24 is a good question A NAT appliance can be had for well less than half a million... (if you are deploying 64K new servers the same applies, except we're talking about a load balancer there) Let's simply get rid of the 25% in 30 days and worry about IPv6 transition. I feel that every time we make the rules more complex we increase the costs for managing requests and those are /not/ borne by the requestor (until they acquire space) This is unfair on the small organizations with LRSA who already have their space and make almost no call on ARIN's services. I.e. the $100/record/year fee when there are no actual changes and there cannot possibly be a $100 worth of power used in preserving each record Thank you Richard Letts -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ctacit at tacitlaw.com Sun Jan 31 11:57:58 2016 From: ctacit at tacitlaw.com (Christian Tacit) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 16:57:58 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Proposal ARIN 2015-2 (Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients)) Message-ID: <4edd852535094bb4ae0127ccc1e82507@S05-MBX03-12.S05.local> I am writing on behalf of the ARIN AC to seek additional input from the community regarding the merits of an amendment being considered to Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2 to address concerns that the proposal as originally drafted provides significant opportunities for circumvention of the anti-flip provisions of Section 8.4. We have addressed the concern by proposing to introduce a requirement that there must be some form of affiliate relationship between the source and recipient entity that will make it reasonably likely that eliminating the 12 month anti-flip period in that situation will meet the needs of multi-region network operators without encouraging abuse. In order to determine the nature of the affiliation that might be sufficient, we turned to the Virginia Stock Corporation Act and used the affiliation principles set out therein based on control, except that we are proposing to increase the beneficial ownership portion of the test from "10% or more" to "more than 50%" relative to the statute for greater certainty. If this approach is used, the text of the fourth bullet under "Conditions on source of the transfer" in section 8.4 would be changed to read: * Source entities within the ARIN region must not have received a transfer, allocation, or assignment of IPv4 number resources from ARIN for the 12 months prior to the approval of a transfer request, unless the source entities directly, or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, control, are controlled by, or are under common control with the recipient entities outside the ARIN region. This restriction does not include M&A transfers. A new section 2.17 would also be added that reads as follows to define "control": The term "control" means the possession, directly or indirectly, through the ownership of voting securities, by contract, arrangement, understanding, relationship or otherwise, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of a person. The beneficial ownership of more than 50 percent of a corporation's voting shares shall be deemed to constitute control. It is, of course, recognized that once numbering resources move to another region, ARIN polices cannot apply to the resources. However, it is important to note that circumvention of section 8.4 is already possible by using a two-step process (a section 8.2 transfer followed by a section 8.4 transfer). Accordingly, it appears that this modified proposal would not really increase abuse, but it would eliminate unnecessary cost and expense in legitimizing a practice that is valid for multi-regional network operators. Similarly, foreign entities are unlikely to go to the bother of acquiring North American corporations for the sole purpose of transferring numbering resources in a manner that contravenes the anti-flip provisions. In the end, an important question to answer is do we want to focus policy on facilitating legitimate transactions and making it more difficult (but not impossible) for abuses to occur, or stopping abuses at the expense of impeding legitimate transactions given that abuses can occur in other ways in any case. We would be interested in community feedback prior to making the proposed change formally. Thank you. Chris Tacit -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: