[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-204 Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers (fwd)

[John Springer]

Hi Bill and John,

Thank you for the thoughtful responses. As a purely process note, please 
allow me to point out that what we have here, ARIN-prop-204, is merely a 
policy proposal. I will do my best to answer comments and questions posed 
inline, but they appear to relate to later steps in the process. At this 
point, when I propose that this proposal be advanced to Draft Policy, the 
only two tests are: Is there a clear problem statement and is that problem 
statement in scope for the AC (for which I am in no way speaking on behalf 
of right now). From my perspective, I am tending toward asserting that 
these criteria have been met, but I am very much interested in opinions to 
the contrary.

On to your comments.

On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, John Santos wrote:

>
> I agree with Bill.

I am going to interpret this as agreeing with his oppostion, as the rest 
of his post was questions.

> It might be appropriate to drop needs testing for
> small allocations simply because it is not worth the effort, but I don't
> see a /16 as being small.  Something in the range of /24 to /20 would
> be better.

The author has expressed that he has thrown out the metric of /16 as a 
basis for discussion. This proposal is couched in terms of reducing ARIN 
staff processing load. If I am understanding the author correctly, setting 
the bar at /16 will have a much greater effect on staffing load than a 
lower bar. It may be that enough of the load is present at say /20 that a 
substantial effect may be realized. It's OK that we talk about the setting 
of this bar now, but it is not directly germane to the next step in the 
PDP.

> Another idea to ponder would be instead of dropping the need requirement,
> we adopt a presumption of good faith for small allocations.  ARIN would
> simply take the word of the requester or recipient for small allocations
> or transfers, but if it was later discovered the recipient was acting in
> bad faith, the allocation could be revoked.

This just seems to me to be Not A Good Idea. I'd have to think on it 
some to elaborate.

> On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, William Herrin wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:35 AM, John Springer <springer at inlandnet.com> wrote:
>>> ARIN-prop-204 Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers
>>>
>>> Policy statement:
>>> Change the language in NRPM 8.3 after Conditions on the recipient of the
>>> transfer: from "The recipient must demonstrate the need for up to a 24-month
>>> supply of IP address resources under current ARIN policies and sign an RSA."
>>> to "For transfers larger than a /16 equivalent, the recipient must
>>> demonstrate the need for up to a 24-month supply of IP address resources
>>> under current ARIN policies and sign an RSA."
>>
>> How would we go about assessing whether such changes prove harmful or
>> helpful?
>>
>> What metrics does ARIN collect under this policy which can be
>> analyzed and presented here so we can consider expanding it to larger
>> transfers?

TBD? Speculative? The usual ways? I'm not sure I would advise inserting 
that level of stuff in policy. It might not be germane at this point in 
the PDP, but I will think on it as the process continues. I feel sure that 
you know of: https://www.arin.net/knowledge/statistics/index.html

ARIN staff has shown willing to provide stats not present there.

>> Does no justification mean no documentation?

This seems more philosophical. I hate to try to guess what your opinion 
is from the proposition. I don't have much of one at this point.

>> What makes you think /16 is the right place to start testing this
>> idea? Traditionally /24 was the last no-justification request
>> accepted. Why is that not the right place to start testing a new
>> no-justification regime?

That the author chose this level to couch his proposal in does not seem to 
make his problem statement unclear or out of scope. I take it from the 
gist that you are more aligned with John Santos' opinion that "Something 
in the range of /24 to /20 would be better."?

John Springer

>> For now I OPPOSE the proposal as written but I'd like to hear more.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bill Herrin
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> John Santos
> Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
> 781-861-0670 ext 539
>
>
>