[arin-ppml] ARIN 2014-13

Fri Jul 18 19:42:30 EDT 2014

You are entitled to your opinion and I’m entitled to mine.  I’ve seen the best laid plans put together by people of good will - not work out as expected over and over in my life.  I hope this doesn’t turn out to be one of those.

Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office

[Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
        Conquering Complex Networks℠

From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 6:57 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: John Curran; Kevin Blumberg; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN 2014-13

I can't  help it if you choose to ignore the facts. Your concern has been repeatedly debunked by the AC, staff, and other members of the list. It simply isn't an accurate or valid concern.

Anyone that can get a larger block now will still be able to get the same size block with the same effort if 2014-13 is implemented.

All 2014-13 does is make it possible for people to get smaller blocks than were previously possible in some cases, enabling organizations that previously could not get any size block to now get some block.

Owen

On Jul 18, 2014, at 09:47 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto: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 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office

<image001.jpg>℠ 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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 - 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20140718/3870c076/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1468 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140718/3870c076/attachment.jpg>