From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Jul 1 00:53:02 2016 From: narten at us.ibm.com (narten at us.ibm.com) Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2016 00:53:02 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201607010453.u614r2ko030460@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 25 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jul 1 00:53:01 EDT 2016 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 16.00% | 4 | 23.43% | 94637 | scottleibrand at gmail.com 20.00% | 5 | 9.45% | 38192 | matthew at matthew.at 12.00% | 3 | 15.65% | 63234 | mike at iptrading.com 8.00% | 2 | 15.01% | 60640 | jschiller at google.com 12.00% | 3 | 6.48% | 26159 | jcurran at arin.net 4.00% | 1 | 6.12% | 24720 | hvgeekwtrvl at gmail.com 4.00% | 1 | 5.44% | 21974 | cblecker at gmail.com 4.00% | 1 | 5.32% | 21483 | bjones at vt.edu 4.00% | 1 | 3.44% | 13902 | cspears.lists at gmail.com 4.00% | 1 | 3.02% | 12201 | matthew.wilder at telus.com 4.00% | 1 | 2.39% | 9665 | andrew.dul at quark.net 4.00% | 1 | 2.18% | 8807 | narten at us.ibm.com 4.00% | 1 | 2.06% | 8331 | jrl at lodden.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 25 |100.00% | 403945 | Total From JOHN at egh.com Wed Jul 6 18:19:28 2016 From: JOHN at egh.com (John Santos) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 18:19:28 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy In-Reply-To: <576967BD.9020400@arin.net> Message-ID: <1160706181848.3431A-100000@joonya.egh.com> Support. On Tue, 21 Jun 2016, ARIN wrote: > On 16 June 2016 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following Draft Policy to Recommended Draft Policy status: ARIN-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy The text of the Recommended Draft Policy is below, and may also be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_1.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-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy Date: 21 June 2016 AC assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy: This proposal enables fair and impartial number resource administration by ensuring that IPv4 resources, which are specially designated for critical infrastructure and IPv6 transition, are readily available for many years into the future. This is done by ensuring the resources remain in their originally designated pool rather than being moved into the general IPv4 address pool via a transfer. This proposal is technically sound and is supported by the community. Problem Statement: Section 8 of the current NRPM does not distinguish between the transfer of blocks from addresses that have been reserved for specific uses and other addresses that can be transferred. In sections 4.4 and 4.10 there are specific address blocks set aside, based on the need for critical infrastructure and IPv6 transitions. Two issues arise if transfers of reserved address space occur under the current language of section 8. First, if transfers of 4.4 or 4.10 space occur under the current policy requirements set forth in sections 8.3 and 8.4, the recipients will be able to acquire space that was originally reserved for a specific purpose without ever providing evidence that they will be using the space for either critical infrastructure or IPv6 transition. Second, if we allow an allocation or assignment from the block reserved in section 4.10 to be transferred out of the region, it would complicate the single aggregate from which providers are being asked to allow in block sizes smaller than a /24. This policy would limit the transfer of addresses from reserved pools. Policy statement: Add to Section 8.3 and Section 8.4 under the "Conditions on source of the transfer:" Address resources from a reserved pool (including those designated in Section 4.4 and 4.10) are not eligible for transfer. Timetable for implementation: Immediate ########## ARIN STAFF & LEGAL ASSESSMENT Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1 RESERVED POOL TRANSFER POLICY https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_1.html Date of Assessment: 13 June 2016 ___ 1. Summary (Staff Understanding) This policy would make IPv4 addresses issued under NRPM 4.4 and 4.10 ineligible for transfer inside the NRPM 8.3 and 8.4 transfer policies. ___ 2. Comments A. ARIN Staff Comments * If this policy is implemented, ARIN staff would not allow NRPM 8.3 and 8.4 transfers to include IPv4 addresses previously issued under NRPM 4.4 and 4.10 policies. * ARIN staff would continue to allow IPv4 addresses previously issued under NRPM 4.4 and 4.10 to be included in Merger and Acquisition (NRPM 8.2) transfers. * This policy could be implemented as written. B. ARIN General Counsel ??? Legal Assessment The policy does not create a material legal issue. It should be noted that ARIN does permit transfers of IPV4 resources pursuant to 8.3 and 8.4. This policy is an exception to that transferability and is consistent with the intent and of the policy by which these allocations were made. ___ 3. Resource Impact Implementation of this policy would have minimal resource impact. It is estimated that implementation would occur within 3 months after ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees. The following would be needed in order to implement: * Updated guidelines and internal procedures * Staff training ___ 4. Proposal / Draft Policy Text Assessed Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1 Reserved Pool Transfer Policy Date: 22 March 2016 Problem Statement: Section 8 of the current NRPM does not distinguish between the transfer of blocks from addresses that have been reserved for specific uses and other addresses that can be transferred. In sections 4.4 and 4.10 there are specific address blocks set aside, based on the need for critical infrastructure and IPv6 transitions. Two issues arise if transfers of reserved address space occur under the current language of section 8. First, if transfers of 4.4 or 4.10 space occur under the current policy requirements set forth in sections 8.3 and 8.4, the recipients will be able to acquire space that was originally reserved for a specific purpose without ever providing evidence that they will be using the space for either critical infrastructure or IPv6 transition. Second, if we allow an allocation or assignment from the block reserved in section 4.10 to be transferred out of the region, it would complicate the single aggregate from which providers are being asked to allow in block sizes smaller than a /24. This policy would limit the transfer of addresses from reserved pools. Policy statement: Add to Section 8.3 and Section 8.4 under the "Conditions on source of the transfer:" Address resources from a reserved pool (including those designated in Section 4.4 and 4.10) are not eligible for transfer. Timetable for implementation: Immediate _______________________________________________ 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. -- John Santos Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539 From chris at semihuman.com Wed Jul 6 20:36:18 2016 From: chris at semihuman.com (Chris Woodfield) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 17:36:18 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy In-Reply-To: <576967BD.9020400@arin.net> References: <576967BD.9020400@arin.net> Message-ID: <3198026C-6E7C-485A-87A0-CE9827C2560F@semihuman.com> I support as written. Thanks, -C > On Jun 21, 2016, at 9:13 AM, ARIN wrote: > > On 16 June 2016 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following Draft Policy to Recommended Draft Policy status: > > ARIN-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy > > The text of the Recommended Draft Policy is below, and may also be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_1.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-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy > > Date: 21 June 2016 > > AC assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy: > > This proposal enables fair and impartial number resource administration by ensuring that IPv4 resources, which are specially designated for critical infrastructure and IPv6 transition, are readily available for many years into the future. This is done by ensuring the resources remain in their originally designated pool rather than being moved into the general IPv4 address pool via a transfer. This proposal is technically sound and is supported by the community. > > Problem Statement: > > Section 8 of the current NRPM does not distinguish between the transfer of blocks from addresses that have been reserved for specific uses and other addresses that can be transferred. In sections 4.4 and 4.10 there are specific address blocks set aside, based on the need for critical infrastructure and IPv6 transitions. Two issues arise if transfers of reserved address space occur under the current language of section 8. First, if transfers of 4.4 or 4.10 space occur under the current policy requirements set forth in sections 8.3 and 8.4, the recipients will be able to acquire space that was originally reserved for a specific purpose without ever providing evidence that they will be using the space for either critical infrastructure or IPv6 transition. Second, if we allow an allocation or assignment from the block reserved in section 4.10 to be transferred out of the region, it would complicate the single aggregate from which providers are being asked to allow in block sizes smaller than a /24. This policy would limit the transfer of addresses from reserved pools. > > Policy statement: > > Add to Section 8.3 and Section 8.4 under the "Conditions on source of the transfer:" > > Address resources from a reserved pool (including those designated in Section 4.4 and 4.10) are not eligible for transfer. > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > > ########## > > ARIN STAFF & LEGAL ASSESSMENT > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1 > RESERVED POOL TRANSFER POLICY > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_1.html > > Date of Assessment: 13 June 2016 > ___ > 1. Summary (Staff Understanding) > > This policy would make IPv4 addresses issued under NRPM 4.4 and 4.10 ineligible for transfer inside the NRPM 8.3 and 8.4 transfer policies. > ___ > 2. Comments > > A. ARIN Staff Comments > > * If this policy is implemented, ARIN staff would not allow NRPM 8.3 and 8.4 transfers to include IPv4 addresses previously issued under NRPM 4.4 and 4.10 policies. > > * ARIN staff would continue to allow IPv4 addresses previously issued under NRPM 4.4 and 4.10 to be included in Merger and Acquisition (NRPM 8.2) transfers. > > * This policy could be implemented as written. > > B. ARIN General Counsel ? Legal Assessment > > The policy does not create a material legal issue. It should be noted that ARIN does permit transfers of IPV4 resources pursuant to 8.3 and 8.4. This policy is an exception to that transferability and is consistent with the intent and of the policy by which these allocations were made. > ___ > 3. Resource Impact > > Implementation of this policy would have minimal resource impact. It is estimated that implementation would occur within 3 months after ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees. The following would be needed in order to implement: > > * Updated guidelines and internal procedures > > * Staff training > ___ > 4. Proposal / Draft Policy Text Assessed > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1 > Reserved Pool Transfer Policy > > Date: 22 March 2016 > > Problem Statement: > > Section 8 of the current NRPM does not distinguish between the transfer of blocks from addresses that have been reserved for specific uses and other addresses that can be transferred. In sections 4.4 and 4.10 there are specific address blocks set aside, based on the need for critical infrastructure and IPv6 transitions. Two issues arise if transfers of reserved address space occur under the current language of section 8. First, if transfers of 4.4 or 4.10 space occur under the current policy requirements set forth in sections 8.3 and 8.4, the recipients will be able to acquire space that was originally reserved for a specific purpose without ever providing evidence that they will be using the space for either critical infrastructure or IPv6 transition. Second, if we allow an allocation or assignment from the block reserved in section 4.10 to be transferred out of the region, it would complicate the single aggregate from which providers are being asked to allow in block sizes smaller than a /24. This policy would limit the transfer of addresses from reserved pools. > > Policy statement: > > Add to Section 8.3 and Section 8.4 under the "Conditions on source of the transfer:" > > Address resources from a reserved pool (including those designated in Section 4.4 and 4.10) are not eligible for transfer. > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > _______________________________________________ > 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 sethm at rollernet.us Thu Jul 7 13:48:05 2016 From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 10:48:05 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy In-Reply-To: <576967BD.9020400@arin.net> References: <576967BD.9020400@arin.net> Message-ID: <63d98775-e50a-2648-2f31-92a57685715c@rollernet.us> On 6/21/16 09:13, ARIN wrote: > > Policy statement: > > Add to Section 8.3 and Section 8.4 under the "Conditions on source of > the transfer:" > > Address resources from a reserved pool (including those designated in > Section 4.4 and 4.10) are not eligible for transfer. > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate I agree with and support this proposal. ~Seth From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Jul 8 00:53:03 2016 From: narten at us.ibm.com (narten at us.ibm.com) Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 00:53:03 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201607080453.u684r3dI010479@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 4 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jul 8 00:53:03 EDT 2016 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 25.00% | 1 | 30.68% | 12307 | chris at semihuman.com 25.00% | 1 | 30.18% | 12103 | john at egh.com 25.00% | 1 | 22.47% | 9011 | narten at us.ibm.com 25.00% | 1 | 16.67% | 6687 | sethm at rollernet.us --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 4 |100.00% | 40108 | Total From info at arin.net Wed Jul 13 13:26:13 2016 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 13:26:13 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] NRPM 2016.2 - New Policies Implemented Message-ID: <578679B5.2070509@arin.net> On 19 April 2016, the Board of Trustees adopted the following policies: > ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_5.html > ARIN-2015-11: Remove transfer language which only applied pre-exhaustion of IPv4 pool https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_11.html On 20 May 2016, the Board of Trustees adopted the following policy: > ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in end-user IPv4 policy https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_3.html On the same date, the Board of Trustees also adopted an editorial update to the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM), viewable at: https://www.arin.net/about_us/bot/20160520/exhibit_d.pdf These new policies and editorial change are now in effect. A new version of the ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) has been published to the ARIN website. NRPM version 2016.2 is effective 13 July 2016 and supersedes the previous version. The NRPM is available at: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html Board minutes are available at: https://www.arin.net/about_us/bot/index.html Draft policies and proposals are available at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/ The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) is available 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 Jul 15 00:53:03 2016 From: narten at us.ibm.com (narten at us.ibm.com) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 00:53:03 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201607150453.u6F4r3T0019884@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 2 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jul 15 00:53:02 EDT 2016 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 50.00% | 1 | 55.20% | 8575 | narten at us.ibm.com 50.00% | 1 | 44.80% | 6960 | info at arin.net --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 2 |100.00% | 15535 | Total From ctacit at tacitlaw.com Mon Jul 18 11:06:14 2016 From: ctacit at tacitlaw.com (Christian Tacit) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:06:14 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Status of Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2 Message-ID: Dear Community Members: The purpose of this email is to provide notice of the current status of Recommended Draft Proposal ARIN-2015-2. On 19 May 2016 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced 2015-2 to Recommended Draft Policy status. Comprehensive information regarding the proposal is set out below. There was some further discussion of the policy on PPML in Early June. If you have any further comments regarding this proposal, you are encouraged to post them on PPML. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN 2015-2 Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients) Date: 24 May 2016 AC's assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN 2015-2 contributes to fair and impartial number resources administration by removing an impediment to the transfer of IPv4 numbering resources to other RIRs when business needs change within the first 12 months of receipt of a 24 month supply of IP addresses by an entity via the transfer market. It is technically sound in that it balances removing limits on transfers of IPv4 numbering resources to other RIRs with safeguards related to ownership and control described in the draft policy to reduce the likelihood of fraudulent transactions. There was strong community support for this draft policy at the NANOG 66 PPC and ARIN 37, subject only to some suggested editorial changes which have now been implemented in the latest version. Problem Statement: Organizations that obtain a 24 month supply of IP addresses via the transfer market and then have an unexpected change in business plan are unable to move IP addresses to the proper RIR within the first 12 months of receipt. Policy statement: Replace 8.4, bullet 4, 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 either the source or recipient entity owns or controls the other, or both are under common ownership or control. This restriction does not include M&A transfers." Comments: Organizations that obtain a 24 month supply of IP addresses via the transfer market and then have an unexpected change in business plan are unable to move IP addresses to the proper RIR within the first 12 months of receipt. The need to move the resources does not flow from ARIN policy, but rather from the requirement of certain registries outside the ARIN region to have the resources moved in order to be used there. The intention of this change is to allow organizations to perform inter-RIR transfers of space received via an 8.3 transfer regardless of the date transferred to ARIN. A common example is that an organization acquires a block located in the ARIN region, transfers it to ARIN, then 3 months later, the organization announces that it wants to launch new services out of region. Under current policy, the organization is prohibited from moving some or all of those addresses to that region's Whois if there is a need to move them to satisfy the rules of the other region requiring the movement of the resources to that region in order for them to be used there. Instead, the numbers are locked in ARIN's Whois. It's important to note that 8.3 transfers are approved for a 24 month supply, and it would not be unheard of for a business model to change within the first 12 months after approval. The proposal also introduces a requirement for an affiliation relationship between the source and recipient entity, based on established corporate law principles, so as to make it reasonably likely that eliminating the 12 month anti-flip period in that situation will meet the needs of organizations that operate networks in more than one region without encouraging abuse. a. Timetable for implementation: Immediate b. Anything else: N/A ##### ARIN STAFF & LEGAL ASSESSMENT Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2 MODIFY 8.4 (INTER-RIR TRANSFERS TO SPECIFIED RECIPIENTS) https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_2.html Date of Assessment: 17 May 2016 ___ 1. Summary (Staff Understanding) Currently, organizations are unable to act as a source on an 8.4 transfer of IPv4 address space if they have received IPv4 address space in the past 12 months from ARIN's IPv4 free pool, the waiting list for unmet requests, or an 8.3 transfer. This draft policy lifts the 12-month restriction in cases when the source or recipient entity owns or controls the other, or both are under common ownership or control. ___ 2. Comments A. ARIN Staff Comments * If this policy is implemented, ARIN staff would no longer apply a 12-month time restriction to organizations who wish to 8.4 transfer IPv4 addresses to themselves or in cases when the source or recipient entity owns or controls the other, or both are under common ownership or control. * This policy could be implemented as written. B. ARIN General Counsel - Legal Assessment Concerns raised by the GC regarding previous versions of this policy have been satisfactorily addressed in the current draft. The current proposed draft does not create material legal issues for ARIN. In order to determine when entities are under common ownership or control, traditional legal standards will be applied by ARIN. ___ 3. Resource Impact Implementation of this policy would have minimal resource impact. It is estimated that implementation would occur within 3 months after ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees. The following would be needed in order to implement: * Updated guidelines and internal procedures * Staff training Chris Tacit -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From 3johnl at gmail.com Wed Jul 20 15:38:51 2016 From: 3johnl at gmail.com (John Springer) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 12:38:51 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants In-Reply-To: <57696006.5010305@arin.net> References: <57696006.5010305@arin.net> Message-ID: Dear PPML, ARIN-2016-4 was accepted as a Draft Policy in June. https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_4.html Expressions of support or opposition to the DP are solicited to assist in evaluating what to do with it in the run up to the meeting in Dallas. At the moment, it appears technically sound and fair to me, but expressions of support will be required to advance. Thank you in advance. John Springer On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 8:40 AM, ARIN wrote: > On 16 June 2016 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following > Proposal to Draft Policy status: > > ARIN-prop-229: Transfers for new entrants > > This Draft Policy has been numbered and titled: > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4 is below and can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_4.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-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants > > Date: 21 June, 2016 > 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. Please refer to RFC 2050 for more information on utilization > guidelines. > > 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. > _______________________________________________ > 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 rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com Wed Jul 20 22:14:20 2016 From: rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com (Brett Frankenberger) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 21:14:20 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants In-Reply-To: References: <57696006.5010305@arin.net> Message-ID: <20160721021420.GA10312@panix.com> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:38:51PM -0700, John Springer wrote: > Dear PPML, > > ARIN-2016-4 was accepted as a Draft Policy in June. > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_4.html > > Expressions of support or opposition to the DP are solicited to assist in > evaluating what to do with it in the run up to the meeting in Dallas. > > At the moment, it appears technically sound and fair to me, but expressions > of support will be required to advance. Support. > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 8:40 AM, ARIN wrote: > > > On 16 June 2016 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following > > Proposal to Draft Policy status: > > > > ARIN-prop-229: Transfers for new entrants > > > > This Draft Policy has been numbered and titled: > > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants > > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4 is below and can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_4.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-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants > > > > Date: 21 June, 2016 > > 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. Please refer to RFC 2050 for more information on utilization > > guidelines. > > > > 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 mike at iptrading.com Thu Jul 21 17:04:58 2016 From: mike at iptrading.com (Mike Burns) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 17:04:58 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants In-Reply-To: References: <57696006.5010305@arin.net> Message-ID: <023601d1e393$89ff1b70$9dfd5250$@iptrading.com> Support. From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Springer Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 3:39 PM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants Dear PPML, ARIN-2016-4 was accepted as a Draft Policy in June. https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_4.html Expressions of support or opposition to the DP are solicited to assist in evaluating what to do with it in the run up to the meeting in Dallas. At the moment, it appears technically sound and fair to me, but expressions of support will be required to advance. Thank you in advance. John Springer On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 8:40 AM, ARIN > wrote: On 16 June 2016 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following Proposal to Draft Policy status: ARIN-prop-229: Transfers for new entrants This Draft Policy has been numbered and titled: Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4 is below and can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_4.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-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants Date: 21 June, 2016 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. Please refer to RFC 2050 for more information on utilization guidelines. 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. _______________________________________________ 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 bjones at vt.edu Thu Jul 21 21:11:54 2016 From: bjones at vt.edu (Brian Jones) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 21:11:54 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants In-Reply-To: References: <57696006.5010305@arin.net> Message-ID: Support. On Jul 20, 2016 3:39 PM, "John Springer" <3johnl at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PPML, > > ARIN-2016-4 was accepted as a Draft Policy in June. > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_4.html > > Expressions of support or opposition to the DP are solicited to assist in > evaluating what to do with it in the run up to the meeting in Dallas. > > At the moment, it appears technically sound and fair to me, but > expressions of support will be required to advance. > > Thank you in advance. > > John Springer > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 8:40 AM, ARIN wrote: > >> On 16 June 2016 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following >> Proposal to Draft Policy status: >> >> ARIN-prop-229: Transfers for new entrants >> >> This Draft Policy has been numbered and titled: >> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants >> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4 is below and can be found at: >> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_4.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-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants >> >> Date: 21 June, 2016 >> 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. Please refer to RFC 2050 for more information on utilization >> guidelines. >> >> 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. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 narten at us.ibm.com Fri Jul 22 00:53:03 2016 From: narten at us.ibm.com (narten at us.ibm.com) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 00:53:03 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201607220453.u6M4r3Md011672@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 6 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jul 22 00:53:03 EDT 2016 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 16.67% | 1 | 26.63% | 29094 | ctacit at tacitlaw.com 16.67% | 1 | 19.27% | 21057 | mike at iptrading.com 16.67% | 1 | 19.21% | 20994 | bjones at vt.edu 16.67% | 1 | 17.63% | 19259 | 3johnl at gmail.com 16.67% | 1 | 9.55% | 10434 | rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com 16.67% | 1 | 7.72% | 8432 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 6 |100.00% | 109270 | Total From info at arin.net Tue Jul 26 09:13:41 2016 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 09:13:41 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - July 2016 Message-ID: <57976205.9010708@arin.net> In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 21 July 2016. The AC has advanced the following Proposal to Draft Policy status (will be posted for discussion): ARIN-prop-231: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM The AC advances Proposals to Draft Policy status once they are found to be within the scope of the PDP, and contain a clear problem statement and suggested changes to number resource policy text. The AC is continuing to work on: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients) Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy 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-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5: Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer Policy 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 Jul 26 09:21:29 2016 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 09:21:29 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM Message-ID: <579763D9.7010005@arin.net> 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. From rudi.daniel at gmail.com Tue Jul 26 09:55:53 2016 From: rudi.daniel at gmail.com (Rudolph Daniel) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 09:55:53 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2016-4 Message-ID: Re: 2016-4 I am in support of the policy proposal as stated. rd On Jul 26, 2016 9:22 AM, 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: Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants > (Brian Jones) > 2. Weekly posting summary for ppml at arin.net (narten at us.ibm.com) > 3. Advisory Council Meeting Results - July 2016 (ARIN) > 4. Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM (ARIN) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 21:11:54 -0400 > From: Brian Jones > To: John Springer <3johnl at gmail.com> > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new > entrants > Message-ID: > VmaDkhdaAxWpX-TCjqrQ at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Support. > > On Jul 20, 2016 3:39 PM, "John Springer" <3johnl at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PPML, > > > > ARIN-2016-4 was accepted as a Draft Policy in June. > > > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_4.html > > > > Expressions of support or opposition to the DP are solicited to assist in > > evaluating what to do with it in the run up to the meeting in Dallas. > > > > At the moment, it appears technically sound and fair to me, but > > expressions of support will be required to advance. > > > > Thank you in advance. > > > > John Springer > > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 8:40 AM, ARIN wrote: > > > >> On 16 June 2016 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following > >> Proposal to Draft Policy status: > >> > >> ARIN-prop-229: Transfers for new entrants > >> > >> This Draft Policy has been numbered and titled: > >> > >> Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants > >> > >> Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4 is below and can be found at: > >> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_4.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-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants > >> > >> Date: 21 June, 2016 > >> 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. Please refer to RFC 2050 for more information on > utilization > >> guidelines. > >> > >> 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. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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: < > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20160721/72781c9f/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 00:53:03 -0400 > From: narten at us.ibm.com > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml at arin.net > Message-ID: <201607220453.u6M4r3Md011672 at rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Total of 6 messages in the last 7 days. > > script run at: Fri Jul 22 00:53:03 EDT 2016 > > Messages | Bytes | Who > --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ > 16.67% | 1 | 26.63% | 29094 | ctacit at tacitlaw.com > 16.67% | 1 | 19.27% | 21057 | mike at iptrading.com > 16.67% | 1 | 19.21% | 20994 | bjones at vt.edu > 16.67% | 1 | 17.63% | 19259 | 3johnl at gmail.com > 16.67% | 1 | 9.55% | 10434 | rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com > 16.67% | 1 | 7.72% | 8432 | narten at us.ibm.com > --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ > 100.00% | 6 |100.00% | 109270 | Total > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 09:13:41 -0400 > From: ARIN > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - July 2016 > Message-ID: <57976205.9010708 at arin.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN > Advisory Council (AC) met on 21 July 2016. > > The AC has advanced the following Proposal to Draft Policy status (will > be posted for discussion): > > ARIN-prop-231: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM > > The AC advances Proposals to Draft Policy status once they are found to > be within the scope of the PDP, and contain a clear problem statement > and suggested changes to number resource policy text. > > The AC is continuing to work on: > > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR > Transfers to Specified Recipients) > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated > need for IPv4 transfers > > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy > > 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-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5: Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer > Policy > > 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) > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 09:21:29 -0400 > From: ARIN > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from > NRPM > Message-ID: <579763D9.7010005 at arin.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > 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. > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML mailing list > ARIN-PPML at arin.net > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 133, Issue 4 > ***************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rakesh.maharjan at whitehatsec.com Tue Jul 26 12:47:49 2016 From: rakesh.maharjan at whitehatsec.com (Rakesh Maharjan) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:47:49 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2016-4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1CAF1061-2C10-4573-B84A-8C35657A27DA@whitehatsec.com> I am in support as well. Rakesh Maharjan From: on behalf of Rudolph Daniel Date: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 6:55 AM To: "arin-ppml at arin.net" Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2016-4 Re: 2016-4 I am in support of the policy proposal as stated. rd On Jul 26, 2016 9:22 AM, > 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: Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants (Brian Jones) 2. Weekly posting summary for ppml at arin.net (narten at us.ibm.com) 3. Advisory Council Meeting Results - July 2016 (ARIN) 4. Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM (ARIN) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 21:11:54 -0400 From: Brian Jones > To: John Springer <3johnl at gmail.com> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Support. On Jul 20, 2016 3:39 PM, "John Springer" <3johnl at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PPML, > > ARIN-2016-4 was accepted as a Draft Policy in June. > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_4.html > > Expressions of support or opposition to the DP are solicited to assist in > evaluating what to do with it in the run up to the meeting in Dallas. > > At the moment, it appears technically sound and fair to me, but > expressions of support will be required to advance. > > Thank you in advance. > > John Springer > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 8:40 AM, ARIN > wrote: > >> On 16 June 2016 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following >> Proposal to Draft Policy status: >> >> ARIN-prop-229: Transfers for new entrants >> >> This Draft Policy has been numbered and titled: >> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants >> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4 is below and can be found at: >> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_4.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-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants >> >> Date: 21 June, 2016 >> 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. Please refer to RFC 2050 for more information on utilization >> guidelines. >> >> 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. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 00:53:03 -0400 From: narten at us.ibm.com To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml at arin.net Message-ID: <201607220453.u6M4r3Md011672 at rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Total of 6 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jul 22 00:53:03 EDT 2016 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 16.67% | 1 | 26.63% | 29094 | ctacit at tacitlaw.com 16.67% | 1 | 19.27% | 21057 | mike at iptrading.com 16.67% | 1 | 19.21% | 20994 | bjones at vt.edu 16.67% | 1 | 17.63% | 19259 | 3johnl at gmail.com 16.67% | 1 | 9.55% | 10434 | rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com 16.67% | 1 | 7.72% | 8432 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 6 |100.00% | 109270 | Total ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 09:13:41 -0400 From: ARIN > To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - July 2016 Message-ID: <57976205.9010708 at arin.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 21 July 2016. The AC has advanced the following Proposal to Draft Policy status (will be posted for discussion): ARIN-prop-231: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM The AC advances Proposals to Draft Policy status once they are found to be within the scope of the PDP, and contain a clear problem statement and suggested changes to number resource policy text. The AC is continuing to work on: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients) Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy 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-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5: Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer Policy 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) ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 09:21:29 -0400 From: ARIN > To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM Message-ID: <579763D9.7010005 at arin.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed 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. ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML mailing list ARIN-PPML at arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 133, Issue 4 ***************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The contents of this electronic message, including any attachments, are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please send an e-mail to postmaster at whitehatsec.com and delete this message, along with any attachments, from your computer. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Jul 29 00:53:03 2016 From: narten at us.ibm.com (narten at us.ibm.com) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:53:03 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201607290453.u6T4r3wE018879@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 5 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jul 29 00:53:03 EDT 2016 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 20.00% | 1 | 49.99% | 71360 | rakesh.maharjan at whitehatsec.com 40.00% | 2 | 12.47% | 17795 | info at arin.net 20.00% | 1 | 31.46% | 44907 | rudi.daniel at gmail.com 20.00% | 1 | 6.08% | 8674 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 5 |100.00% | 142736 | Total From andrew.dul at quark.net Sat Jul 30 10:23:09 2016 From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul) Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 07:23:09 -0700 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: <2ae68b4f-6dc5-4f90-aa63-e26fbd81bdae@quark.net> I support this policy to cleanup the IPv6 policy and remove references to the HD-ratio which is no longer used in this region to assign or allocate IPv6 addresses. Andrew On 7/26/2016 6:21 AM, ARIN wrote: > > > ########## > > 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.