[arin-ppml] PP 124 Preliminary Info Was: Re: Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2010

Wed Dec 29 13:52:48 EST 2010

Folks,

I'm preparing the petition for PP 124 and wanted to post a reminder
and the revised text for 124 prior to the petition.

I'd like to request that the ARIN staff please provide an accurate
condition of current inventory including all address space, reserves,
holds, etc.

Best,

Martin

### snarf ###

Policy Proposal ARIN-prop-124
Clarification of Section 4.2.4.4

Proposal Originator: Martin Hannigan, Chris Grundemann

Proposal Version: 2

Date: 13 December 2010

Proposal type: Modify, complete replacement of 4.2.4.4

Policy term: Permanent

Policy statement:

4.2.4.4. Subscriber Members After One Year

After an organization has been a subscriber member of ARIN for one year,
that organization may choose to request up to a 12 month supply of IP
addresses.

On the date that ARIN receives its last /8 as a result of the IANA
executing section 10.4.2.2 of the NRPM and in accordance with the Global
Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space, the
length of supply that any organization may request from ARIN from that
moment forward will be reduced to three months. Any request submitted
prior to that moment will continue to be eligible for a twelve month
supply of IPv4 addresses as long as need has been reasonably
demonstrated and the application is not deemed frivolous.

This reduction does not apply to resources received through the
utilization of NRPM Section 8.3 of the NRPM. An organization receiving a
transfer under NRPM Section 8.3 may continue to request up to a 12-month
supply of IP addresses.

Rationale:

ARIN's pending operational practice is that if an organization has a
request in the ARIN hostmaster queue for IPv4 resources when the IANA
declares the exhaustion phase (10.4.2.2), their request will be
automatically truncated from a twelve month supply to a three month
supply since policy in effect at the time of exhaustion will apply. 8.3
and 4.2.4.4 are currently "in effect".

Example: If an entity is asking for 4 x /24 for a 12 month period and
IANA exhaustion occurs, a requester will receive, if justified, 1 x /24.
If an entity is asking for 120 x /24 at the time that exhaustion occurs,
they would only receive 30 x /24 if justified. If ARIN determines that
this same entity would only qualify for 90 of the 120 x /24 requested,
then that entity would only receive 22 x /24.

ARIN has the equivalent of almost a /8 in at least one reserve, has
recently received 2 /8's, received ~391 x /16's as a result of the
distribution of "various registries" from the IANA and is guaranteed to
receive at least one additional /8 (aggregate of about 92 million
individual IPv4 addresses) as a result of the execution of 10.4.2.2 by
the IANA. Considering the size of the supply, it would seem prudent to
provide for all members needs in a fair and consistent manner as long as
possible in order to support the continued orderly transition of the
Internet to IPv6.

The intention of this proposal is simple. To allow resource requests in
the application queue that have provided an application that has a
reasonable chance of success the opportunity to complete the process and
receive transition addresses.

The ARIN AC should review and determine what action if any should be
taken at their next available opportunity, or sooner if they deem warranted.

On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> To insure that there are no surprises, I want to let folks know that I am going to petition PP124.
>
> If there isn't already a method to insure tracking of requests in the resource request queue that would be impacted by 124, something would be warranted just in case 124 succeeds.
>
>
> Best,
>
> -M<
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Dec 21, 2010, at 12:14 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
>
>> In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN
>> Advisory Council (AC) held a meeting on 16 December 2010 and made
>> decisions about several draft policies and proposals.
>>
>> After last call the AC recommended that the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt
>> the following draft policy:
>>
>>  ARIN-2010-8 Rework of IPv6 assignment criteria
>>
>> The AC moved the following draft policy to last call (it will be posted
>> separately to last call):
>>
>>  ARIN-2010-14 Standardize IP Reassignment Registration Requirements
>>
>> The AC accepted the following proposals on to the AC's docket for
>> development and evaluation:
>>
>>  ARIN-prop-121 Better IPv6 Allocation for ISPs
>>  ARIN-prop-123 Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure
>>
>> The AC abandoned the following proposals:
>>
>>  ARIN-prop-122 Reserved Pool for Future Policy Development
>>  ARIN-prop-124 Clarification of Section 4.2.4.4
>>  ARIN-prop-125 Efficient Utilization of IPv4 Requires Dual-Stack
>>
>> "The AC did not feel that emergency action was warranted for proposal
>> 122, and given that the IANA IPv4 pool is expected to exhaust before the
>> April Public Policy Meeting, did not feel that it would be useful to put
>> this proposal on the AC's docket. The AC would encourage anyone with
>> policy proposals for improving NRPM section 4.10 to submit them
>> immediately, so they can be considered in time for the April meeting."
>>
>> "After discussion of proposal 124, the AC did not feel that emergency
>> action was warranted. Normally there are few requests in queue and any
>> moment, as a result the expected overall impact of this issue should be
>> small. Furthermore, it is possible this proposal could increase the
>> motivation to submit incomplete or fraudulent proposals at the last
>> moment, it was felt this should not be encouraged.  As the trigger event
>> in NRPM Section 4.2.4.4 is almost assuredly to have occurred before the
>> April Public Policy Meeting, this proposal would be irrelevant by the
>> time it could be presented at that meeting. Therefore, the AC voted to
>> abandon the proposal now."
>>
>> And regarding ARIN-prop-125 the AC stated, "The initial interpretation
>> was that while ARIN's role is to manage and administer Internet number
>> resources, this proposal strays too far from management towards a
>> mandate. This proposal may benefit the deployment of IPv6, but it would
>> do so by forcing companies to deploy IPv6 where it may not be
>> immediately needed and could have unintended consequences on IPv4
>> transfers."
>>
>> The PDP states, “Any member of the community, including a proposal
>> originator, may initiate a Discussion Petition if they are dissatisfied
>> with the action taken by the Advisory Council regarding any specific
>> policy proposal.” The abandonment of proposals 122, 124 and 125 may be
>> petitioned to try to change them into draft policies for discussion on
>> the Public Policy Mailing List and at the April Public Policy Meeting
>> (this is the Discussion  Petition). The deadline to begin a petition
>> will be five business days after the AC's draft meeting minutes are
>> published. For more information on starting and participating in
>> petitions, see PDP Petitions at:
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_petitions.html
>>
>> Draft Policy and Policy Proposal texts are available at:
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
>>
>> The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Communications and Member Services
>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>