[arin-ppml] ARIN 2014-13

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Thu Jul 17 05:27:21 EDT 2014


Member of the AC hat on (though not speaking on behalf of the AC):

If this proposal gains traction and 2014-13 is adopted, the AC and the community can make the necessary adjustments to it in light of 2014-13 if 2014-13 is adopted.

Changing 2014-13 so substantially at this time would only serve to delay its potential implementation without actually benefiting this proposal. If such a range is desired to go with this proposal, the necessary changes can be added to this proposal without significant difficulty.

AC hat off -- Speaking only as myself and a member of the community at large:

I fail to see the logic in establishing a "minimum range". A minimum is just that... A minimum. Anything larger than the minimum is not the minimum, so a minimum range is a minimum and some other numbers that happen to be larger than the minimum.

Even if 2014-13 were somehow modified and we were able to work past the lexical cognitive dissonance inherent in the idea of a "minimum range", I don't see how this proposal would work without significant modification to deal with the issue of how a request is mapped to a particular "minimum" within the "minimum range" that applies by as yet unspecified criteria.

Perhaps if you could clarify how you see this idea of a "minimum range" working and how it could actually be implemented or what it is you hope having such a thing would provide that the existing policy and/or 2014-13 does not provide, it would be helpful.

Owen

On Jul 13, 2014, at 10:39 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:

> Its more complicated than that.  I’ve submitted the proposed policy change below to the AC.  Obviously at this early stage I don’t know if the Community will accept this or not but 2014-13 complicates this proposal.  That is part of the reason why I suggested changing 2014-13 to specify a range rather than a fixed allocation.  I would be fine with having this proposal included with 2014-13 if the AC though that made sense.  Otherwise it can remain separate. 
>  
>  
> TEMPLATE: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-3.0
>  
> 1. Policy Proposal Name: Simplifying Minimum Allocations and Assignments
>  
> 2. Proposal Originator
>    a. name: Steven Ryerse
>    b. email: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com
>    c. telephone: 770.656.1460 (c) 770.399.9099 (w)
>    d. organization: Eclipse Networks Inc.
>  
> 3. Date: 06-JUN-2014
>  
> 4. Problem Statement:
>  
>    New and small organizations are having a difficult time receiving
>    resource allocations from ARIN because of the economic, administrative
>    and time burdens of making their way through ARIN's needs testing
>    process. For small allocations, the burdens of needs testing may
>    exceed the value of the resources, or may deter small, less
>    well-funded organizations' ability to receive an allocation from ARIN.
>    As ARIN was created to provide Internet resources to ALL organizations
>    within its geographic territory, this disparity in the Policy Manual
>    needs to be addressed.  The problem can be remedied by removing needs
>    testing for any organization that applies to receive the current
>    minimum block size allocation.
>  
>  
> 5. Policy statement:
>  
>    "A Minimum IP allocation size(s) has been defined per Section 4 of
>    the ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual.  Regardless of any policy
>    requirement(s) defined in any other active Section of the Policy
>    Manual, all organizations may apply and shall automatically qualify
>    for the current Minimum IP Block Allocation upon completing the
>    normal administrative application process and fee requirements, and
>    all organizations shall be eligible for such an allocation once
>    every 12 months.  Where this is in conflict with any other Section
>    in the Policy Manual, this Section shall be controlling."
>  
>  
> 6. Comments:
>    a. Timetable for implementation: Immediate
>    b. Anything else:
>  
>  
>  
> Steven Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> www.eclipse-networks.com
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099- Office
>  
> <image001.jpg>℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>         Conquering Complex Networks℠
>  
> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] 
> Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2014 8:47 AM
> To: Kevin Blumberg
> Cc: Steven Ryerse; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN 2014-13
>  
> On Jul 12, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Kevin Blumberg <kevinb at thewire.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
> Steven,
>  
> I’ve double checked with staff and this proposal will not make allocations or assignments larger than /24 more difficult than today.  
>  
> In the revised section 4.2.1.5 Minimum allocation the text allows for /24 and larger prefixes, it isn’t limited to only a /24.
>  
> Correct.  An updated staff assessment is forthcoming which adds the sentence:
>  
> "If implemented, staff would continue using these well established criteria and 
>  guidelines for initial requests larger than /24."
>  
> FYI,
> /John
>  
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> 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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140717/b3e0edfb/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list