[ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-13

[Rob Vinson]

I like the sound of this one. I assume by this you mean getting a /19 at a
time instead?

Having recently received another /20, I can say it was the lengthiest review
I've been through (my 5th one). We were at 88% allocated when I sent the
initial email and it took 3 weeks of going back and forth. I in fact did run
out of IP's while waiting for my request to be approved (we were doing a new
product rollout). Oh the joy of trying to explain that one to the board and
non-savvy VP's!  

We are also discussing a network-wide IP redesign. Internal allocations when
we were young weren't as efficient as what's being done now and a /19 would
give me the room to maneuver and clean up the routing tables. Anyhow my $.02
- thx 
___________________________________________
 
Rob V >>>  
Network Design 
rob.vinson at networktelephone.net
888.432.4855



-----Original Message-----
From: Member Services [mailto:memsvcs at arin.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 1:09 PM
To: ppml at arin.net
Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-13


The ARIN Advisory Council voted to forward the following policy proposal to
the ARIN Board of Trustees for consideration.

This is a last call for comments on this policy proposal prior to the ARIN
Board of Trustees review. Comments received during this period will be
included with the proposal when it is presented to the Board of Trustees for
their consideration.

Please send your comments to ppml at arin.net. This last call will expire at
23:59 EST on December 3, 2003.


Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


*** Last Call: Policy Proposal 2003-13: Six Month Supply of
IP Addresses ***

Proposal to allow members to choose to work on a 6-month
cycle.

After a subscriber has been a member of ARIN for one year
they may choose to request a 6 month supply of IP addresses.

########################################

Discussion of the proposal by Michael Dillon:

This is basically intended to reduce some of the
administrative burden at both the subscriber/member and at ARIN. It means
that members can choose to have, on average, two interactions with ARIN per
year rather than 4. There is some benefit to the community in forcing
newcomers to interact every 3 months because of the need to learn and gain
experience, but beyond the first year, we should let people have more
flexibility.

This will also allow larger members with more bureaucratic internal
processes to avoid internal address shortage crises. I have mentioned this
on the ppml list before in the following paragraph:

Here's what I mean. If your goal was to maximize the
efficiency of address assignment, then you would eventually reach an upper
limit for every netblock beyond which you can't improve efficiency. I'm
assuming that is greater than 80% utilization. That means that when you
reach 80% on your last netblock, you have already used up all possible
addresses on previous netblocks so that you only have the last 20% of the
most recent netblock to allocate. In fact, you probably have less than 20%
because it is not possible to assign IPv4 addresses to 100% efficiency.
Assuming that the allocation is based on 3 months of usage, i.e. 13 weeks,
this means that you have no more than 2.6 weeks supply of addresses left
when you submit your ARIN application. The .6 weeks will be used up by
ARIN's 2-3 business days of turnaround time so you will only have 2 weeks to
get these new addresses into your systems. The people who do this work also
do other planned and break-fix operational work so they can't be expected to
just drop everything and handle these new IP addresses every time.

Timetable for implementation

I suggest that this proposal should be implemented within 30 days of a
decision by a members meeting.

## END ##