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

CJ Aronson cja at daydream.com
Wed Mar 5 08:17:07 EST 2014


Martin,

See below


On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:13 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
>
>
> [ clip ]
>
>
> >
> > "Subsequent Allocations for Additional Discrete Network Sites This policy
> > enables fair and impartial number resource administration by documenting
> the
> > current practice regarding allocations for additional discrete network
> > sites. The ARIN staff has been following a procedure that has not been
> > documented until now. By documenting this process the community has clear
> > understanding of how to get address space for additional network sites.
> >
> > This is a technically sound proposal that has been in practice for some
> > time. It had just not been documented.
> >
> > This proposal has received several notes of support on the PPML and to
> date
> > has received no negative feedback."
>
> You must not have been at the aforementioned consultation.
>
> First of all I was online listening to the PPC.  Second I didn't write the
changes but I do agree with them and belleve they reflect the concerns that
came up at that meeting.  Third perhaps you should elaborate why you feel
they aren't appropriate changes. The concern at the PPC was that
jusfication of need is already defined in the NRPM and that is what should
be used to justify need.

>
> > 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?
>

There is nothing in this policy that isn't currently happening in practice
with MDN allocations.  I am not sure what "contracted as an ISP" means.

---Cathy

>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140305/be021e47/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list