[arin-ppml] Against 2013-4

[John Curran]

On Jun 3, 2013, at 12:34 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:57 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>  However, we know that DDN NIC (run by SRI) did require you to specify your
>>  need for address space to determine which size allocation to issue you and
>>  this meant your anticipated need initially, and at one, two, and five years
>>  out.   This information was required to be submitted with the network
>>  request template, and we have copies of those back as early as
>>  1990 which make the requirement quite clear, and definitely in
>>  keeping with the term needs-assessment as it is in use today.
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> Suggesting that the pre-1995 templates were "quite clear" in their
> needs-basis stretches the truth. Prior to the 9/94 template, the
> standard for larger-than-/24 assignments was "strong and convincing
> reason" with no further guidance as to what sort of reason was
> acceptable. No reason was expected for a /24 assignment.
> 

> The 8/95 template was the first one which called out the estimate of
> hosts and subnets as providing the justification for a larger-than-/24
> assignment.

Bill, the 4/90 template asks for the number of hosts that will be on 
the network initially, within one year, two years, and five years, 
and then additionally requires a strong and convincing reason if you 
are requesting more that a /24. You've already got a copy of here:
<http://bill.herrin.us/network/templates/199004-internet-number-template.txt>

Clearly, any assignment larger than a /24 was needs-based by any
definition (and this is in April 1990).  I would argue that the 
requirement to provide the number of hosts )that would be on the 
network) is also a form of demonstrating one's need, but you are
free to interpret it as you see fit.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN