[arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2013-8: Subsequent Allocations for New Multiple Discrete Networks - Revised

[Andrew Dul]

On 3/5/2014 9:11 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> You get AC airline status upgrade karma points if you can tell me that this is meaningless then. 
>
> From immediate need text :
>
> "These cases are exceptional."

I'd agree the immediate need text is old and probably doesn't make as
much sense as it used to, but that isn't what we are debating here.  We
are trying to make it easier for orgs to allocate address space to new
MDN sites.

> That doesn't sound easier. And is not current "undocumented" practice. 

https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_32/PDF/thursday/nobile-policy.pdf

Slide 7, Is the current "undocumented new site MDN practice" which says
ARIN uses the immediate need text.


>
> And end users are still excluded. 

I'll agree, but MDN was never designed for end-users, I'm not opposed to
bringing end-users and ISPs closer together in policy, but again we're
trying to fix a specific issue here with MDN. 


>
> Abandon. Thanks.
>
> Best,
>
> Martin 
>
>> On Mar 5, 2014, at 11:50, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/5/2014 4:55 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:13 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> [ clip ]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Add the following statement to section 4.5.4.
>>>>
>>>> Upon verification that the organization has demonstrated need at its new
>>>> discrete network site, the new networks shall be allocated the minimum
>>>> allocation size under section 4.2.1.5 unless the organization can
>>>> demonstrate additional need using the immediate need criteria (4.2.1.6).
>>> Talk about locking someone out of a policy lock, stock and barrel and
>>> flushing "stewardship" down the drain completely. Most MDN users are
>>> going to go straight to 4.2.1.6 only to find that they are locked out
>>> because they aren't contracted as an ISP. They could buy another
>>> OrgID... and pay another exorbitant fee if qualified I guess. If we
>>> really want to limit users to a /22 why not do it across the board?
>>>
>>> I'm glad we moved beyond ARIN trying to define business terms between
>>> networks and ARIN customers, but we should move beyond this entirely
>>> and abandon it.
>> I disagree that this new text is a no-op or that it makes MDN user's
>> requests more difficult.  This policy is intended to make it _easier_
>> for orgs to get address space for new sites.
>>
>> Under ARIN's current operational practice, ARIN is forcing MDN orgs to
>> use immediate need to get address space for a new site.  This policy is
>> intended to make it as easy as...Do you have a new site?  Yes> Does it
>> need address space (e.g. does it meet the original critieria already in
>> MDN 4.5.2) Yes>, then you can allocate the minimum allocation size
>> (currently /22) to the new site.  Done.
>>
>> This policy does not limit you to a /22 per site, it only says that you
>> start with a /22 unless you can actually show that you need more right
>> away, then you can use a 30 day need to justify what size block to
>> allocate to a new site.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.