[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Extend Experimental Renewal Timeframe
marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com
Fri Jun 20 13:18:38 EDT 2008
While your idea of how is should go down would be simple and easy, the interpretation is that it requires more than that. And it doesn't say ARIN will contact them via a simple email to ask "hey are you using it?". It says the experimenter must apply for renewal with details.
And honestly I wish a proposal wasn't needed to change 1 year to 2 years. Its a simple change that would cut out an early hit of administrivia and should just be able to be changed in a much simpler way. It doesn't effect the intent of the policy it just adjusts a timeframe that is more realistic.
As far as historical, we are talking about IPv6. And whether its experimental space or someone is just using their direct allocation for experimenting in the lab before publicly routing it, I'm seeing more than one year become a norm for testing and experimenting with IPv6. The point is, experimenting usually takes more than a year.
In short. This is time effecting trivia and I really didn't expect it to be such a debate. Debating how much time we waste for the renewal even makes me laugh. To debate what level of a pain in the ass threshold needs to exist before we change something is really very humorous. I really didn't see this proposal as such a "thinker".
In a nut shell it looks like this part of our policy was written without much thought or maybe a lack of experience with experimenting was the culprit, I don't know and I really don't want to start that debate. So when someone in our community approached me about this I decided to submit a simple realistic change. It's really very simple. 1 year is a short timeframe when it comes to experimenting and I don't think we should waste peoples time on applying for renewal after just 1 year.
From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bicknell at ufp.org]
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 9:23 AM
To: Azinger, Marla
Cc: Randy Bush; heather skanks; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Extend Experimental Renewal Timeframe
In a message written on Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 11:18:56AM -0400, Azinger, Marla wrote:
> Its a waste of time and money for both parties (ARIN Staff and
> Experimenter). One year is a short timeframe for any experiment to
> have to take time out for administrivia. And while 1 year is a waste
> of time for both parties it wont do any harm to push it out to 2 years
> which is a more realistic time frame for an experimenter to really
> figure out if they have something worth pursuing or not.
> And it does NO harm to change it.
For me, the critical item is not that there is administrivia after a year, it is the burden on staff and the experimenter. Based on ARIN's staff response I'm invisioing it goes something like this (having never had an experimental block myself):
ARIN, Via E-Mail:
Hi! It's been a year since you applied for your experimental block.
We would like you to please confirm that you are still conducting the
experiment and provide us with some documentation of your progress.
Experimenter, Via E-Mail:
Hi! The experiment is ongoing. Our web page is at
http:://mybigexperiment.com/ with information on what we're doing.
I did a presentation at IETF about it, archived at
www.ietf.org/meeting123/presoABC.pdf, and I'm on the schedule at the
next nanog as well.
ARIN: Checks URLS.
ARIN, Via E-Mail:
Thanks! Talk to you next year.
If my vision is accurate, then I don't believe the burden is large enough to waste a policy proposal on at this time.
If my vision is inaccurate, then I would encourage someone to post a summary of how much time and effort the one year review took so we have some concrete data. Saying it took 5 hours of time and 30 e-mails to make staff happy would tell me we need to look into this in more detail.
Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
More information about the ARIN-PPML