[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-5: Removal of Renumbering Requirement for Small Multihomers

[Heather Schiller]

Staff can clarify if I get this wrong.. but I believe that deletion of
4.3.6.2 would not have the effect of removing all justification
requirements for additional assignment for Small Mulithomers -
instead, they would have to qualify for additional assignment under
4.3.6.1

4.3.6.1 Utilization Requirements for Additional Assignment
In order to justify an additional assignment, end-users must have
efficiently utilized at least 80% of all previous assignments, and
must provide ARIN with utilization details. The prefix size for an
additional assignment is determined by applying the policies found in
Section 4.3 of the NRPM.

--Heather

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Seth Mattinen <sethm at rollernet.us> wrote:
> On 7/30/12 11:08 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 30, 2012, at 10:33 , Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/25/12 12:27 PM, ARIN wrote:
>>>> Draft Policy ARIN-2012-5
>>>> Removal of Renumbering Requirement for Small Multihomers
>>>>
>>>> On 19 July 2012 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) selected "Removal of
>>>> Renumbering Requirement for Small Multihomers" as a  draft policy for
>>>> adoption discussion on the PPML and at the Public Policy Meeting in
>>>> Dallas in October.
>>>>
>>>> The draft was developed by the AC from policy proposal "ARIN-prop-167
>>>> Removal of Renumbering Requirement for Small Multihomers." Per the
>>>> Policy Development Process, the AC submitted text to ARIN for a staff
>>>> and legal assessment prior to its selection as a draft policy. Below the
>>>> draft policy is the ARIN staff and legal assessment with the text that
>>>> was reviewed. The text did not change after the assessment.
>>>>
>>>> Draft Policy ARIN-2012-5 is below and can be found at:
>>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2012_5.html
>>>>
>>>> You are encouraged to discuss Draft Policy 2012-5 on the PPML prior to
>>>> the October Public Policy Meeting. Discussion on the list and at ARIN
>>>> XXX will be used by the ARIN Advisory Council to determine community
>>>> consensus for adopting this as policy.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Strongly OPPOSE.
>>>
>>> However, I would support this policy if it was modified to allow all
>>> existing IPv4 holders to obtain an additional /24 without justification.
>>>
>>
>> Can you elaborate on the logic underlying that proposed modification
>> and/or the connection between the two?
>>
>> It seems rather non-sequitur to me.
>>
>
> It is, and that's the point. If a small multihomer is allowed extra
> resources only because they started out as "small" then others should be
> able to get another /24 too since many orgs were also "small" at some point.
>
> I would also argue that if an org is asking for more than a /24 they're
> no longer a "small multihomer" anyway. 2012-5 appears to have no merit
> beyond "renumbering is hard", therefore I oppose it.
>
> ~Seth
> _______________________________________________
> 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.