[arin-ppml] Advisory Council seeks additional commentary on PP-158

[Owen DeLong]

Bill,

If you have a way to accomplish the rewrite that doesn't involve a renumber,
I'm all ears.

Owen

On Nov 11, 2011, at 3:12 PM, William Herrin wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Anything to add to the discussion of this policy proposal? There were
>> 82 messages related to the actual issue that had sparked this review
>> and subsequent edit. The primary theme of supporters was that ARIN
>> staff incorrectly interpreted the policy. The opposition weighed in
>> exactly inverse. Support slightly outweighed opposition on the
>> interpretation issue. As far as I can tell, there was ZERO discussion
>> about the resulting proposal after it was posted. Corrections or
>> additional suggestions welcome.
> 
> Hi Marty,
> 
> I don't remember the original "misinterpretation" of the MDN policy.
> Can you provide a pointer to that discussion?
> 
> The way it read (to me) before the change was that a compelling need
> was something like one of the enumerated cases. The way it reads after
> the change is that compelling need is not defined but a discrete
> network is something like one of the enumerated cases. Is that the
> intent?
> 
> When practical, renumbering sections is worth avoiding. We've built up
> a mass of historical commentary on ARIN policy that refers to it by
> section. When the section numbers are reused for something different,
> it can confuse later analysis of that commentary.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Continue or abandon?
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com>
>> ARIN Advisory Council Member
>> 
>> 
>> Latest update to proposal:
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0
>>>> 
>>>>  1. Policy Proposal Name: Clarify Multiple Discreet Networks Policy
>>>>  2. Proposal Originator
>>>>        1. name: Owen DeLong
>>>>        2. e-mail: owen at XX
>>>>        3. telephone: 408-XX
>>>>        4. organization: Hurricane Electric
>>>  3. Proposal Version: 1.1
>>>>  4. Date: 3 October, 2011
>>>>  5. Proposal type: modify
>>>>  6. Policy term: permanent
>>>>  7. Policy statement:
>>>> 
>>>> Modify section 4.5 of the NRPM as follows:
>>>> 
>>>> Replace 4.5.2 with: The organization must have a compelling need to create discrete networks.
>>>> 
>>> Insert new 4.5.3: Discrete networks are separate networks which cannot usefully share a common routing policy.
>>>> Examples might include networks with any of the following characteristics:
>>>> 
>>>> Move 4.5.2 a, b, and c into new 4.5.3.
>>>> 
>>>> Renumber existing 4.5.3 et. seq. to accommodate new 4.5.3 (4.5.3->4.5.4, etc.).
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> The resulting section 4.5 would read:
>>> 
>>> 4.5. Multiple Discrete Networks
>>> 
>>> Organizations with multiple discrete networks desiring to request new or additional address space under a single Organization ID must meet the following criteria:
>>> 
>>> 4.5.1 The organization shall be a single entity and not a consortium of smaller independent entities.
>>> 4.5.2 The organization must have a compelling need to create discrete networks.
>>> 4.5.3 Discrete networks are separate networks which cannot usefully share a common routing policy. Examples might include networks with any of the following characteristics:
>>>  a. Regulatory restrictions for data transmission,
>>>  b. Geographic distance and diversity between networks,
>>>  c. Autonomous multihomed discrete networks.
>>> 4.5.4 The organization must keep detailed records on how it has allocated space to each location, including the date of each allocation.
>>> 4.5.5 When applying for additional internet address registrations from ARIN, the organization must demonstrate utilization greater than 50% of both the last block allocated and the aggregate sum of all blocks allocated from ARIN to that organization. If an organization is unable to satisfy this 50% minimum utilization criteria, the organization may alternatively qualify for additional internet address registrations by having all unallocated blocks of addresses smaller than ARIN's current minimum allocation size.
>>> 4.5.6 The organization may not allocate additional address space to a location until each of that location's address blocks are 80% utilized.
>>> 4.5.7 The organization should notify ARIN at the time of the request their desire to apply this policy to their account.
>>> 
>>>>  8. Rationale:
>>>> 
>>>> Recent discussions on the PPML have shown that while ARIN is correctly applying the policy as intended,
>>>> there are those which interpret the existing wording differently.
>>>> 
>>>> This proposal seeks to clarify the meaning in line with the current and intended application of the policy.
>>>> 
>>>>  9. Timetable for implementation:
>>>> 
>>>> Immediate
>>>> 
>>>> END OF TEMPLATE
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> _______________________________________________
> 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.