[arin-ppml] ARIN 2014-13
Christoph Blecker
cblecker at gmail.com
Fri Jul 18 16:24:14 EDT 2014
Hi Steven,
To quote John earlier in this exact thread:
As far as the staff can determine, 2014-13 will not impact ability for
parties to obtain larger
blocks, as the established criteria and guidelines for initial requests
larger than /24 will still
be used. It would definitely allow issuance of address space (of /24
size) to organizations
that would presently not qualify under current number resource policy
There doesn't seem to be any ambiguity in that. Is there anything you can
provide this community to back up your concerns? Or does this remove any
concerns you have?
Cheers,
Christoph
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com
> wrote:
> While I am concerned that my policy proposal would be affected, my
> larger concern is that this policy will make it harder for smaller
> organizations in practice to receive allocations at the low end of the
> scale right above a /24.
>
>
>
> *Steven Ryerse*
>
> *President*
>
> *100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338*
>
> *770.656.1460 <770.656.1460> - Cell*
>
> *770.399.9099 <770.399.9099>- Office*
>
>
>
> [image: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]℠ Eclipse
> Networks, Inc.
>
> Conquering Complex Networks℠
>
>
>
> *From:* Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 17, 2014 5:27 AM
> *To:* Steven Ryerse
> *Cc:* John Curran; Kevin Blumberg; arin-ppml at arin.net
>
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN 2014-13
>
>
>
> 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 <http://www.eclipse-networks.com/>*
>
> *770.656.1460 <770.656.1460> - Cell*
>
> *770.399.9099 <770.399.9099>- Office*
>
>
>
> <image001.jpg>℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>
> Conquering Complex Networks℠
>
>
>
> *From:* John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net <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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140718/2cb1987e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1468 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140718/2cb1987e/attachment.jpg>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list