[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4
Karl Brumund
kbrumund at dyn.com
Fri Jan 9 13:12:48 EST 2015
> On Jan 8, 2015, at 10:42 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 8, 2015, at 17:33 , David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu <mailto:farmer at umn.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> Now that we are on the other side of the Holidays, I would like to prompt a little more discussion of this Draft Policy.
>>
>> On PPML, there have been 2 clear statements of support, no opposition, a proposal to modify the policy text, primarily consisting of editorial changes for the broader section 4.4, and significant side discussion not directly related to the policy itself.
>>
>> As shepherd, I anticipate this policy going to the PPC in San Antonio at NANOG next month in its current state as a Draft policy. Then subsequent to and based on feedback from San Antonio, maybe making some minor changes, advancing this policy to Recommended Draft policy prior to the PPM in San Francisco in April. Assuming no opposition develops against the proposal.
>>
>> On the current trajectory for this proposal implementation is likely sometime in June, its entirely possible that the ARIN Free Pool would have run out before implementation of this policy can take place. There are several options to deal with this issue;
>>
>> 1. Advance the policy to Recommended Draft prior to the PPC in San
>> Antonio, moving likely implementation to sometime in April.
>
> I support this.
I also support this.
>
>> 2. Request that the Board instruct ARIN Staff to reserve a /16 in
>> anticipation of this policy, imminently. With this option a
>> reservation could reasonably occur in February or March with
>> policy implementation on its current trajectory, likely June.
>
> I’m not sure that there’s any authority to do that short of the board implementing an emergency policy. If they do that, why not simply request the board take this up as an emergency policy? Note: I support doing this if we can’t do number 1 or if it looks like there will not be a /16 available by April.
I second Owen’s comments. I don’t see the NRPM allowing this (nor disallowing it).
>
>> 3. Stay on the current trajectory, get IPv4 address space for the
>> policy from returned or recovered space address space, and what
>> little if any space is the the ARIN Free Pool at implementation,
>> likely June. Its not likely there will be a single contiguous
>> block, likely a hodgepodge of smaller blocks, and it may take a
>> while to collect a /16 for the reservation.
>
> I’d say this is a last resort if we can’t get our act together for 1 or 2.
Seems unlikely as to why this can’t proceed as per above.
>
>>
>> 4. Do nothing, let events overtake the policy if they do, maybe
>> abandoning the policy for lack of IPv4 address space late in the
>> process.
>
> IMHO, having it come to this would be a failure of the process. If the community wants the policy abandoned, then they should say so on the list.
>
> Generally, this policy has been pretty widely supported and the list counts above don’t tell the whole story. Yes, there have been cosmetic tweak requests, but nothing truly substantive and no real opposition whatsoever (very rare in my experience).
Doing nothing is still an action, and I also do not see a direction from the community for this action.
>
>>
>> There are likely other variations on these themes.
>>
>> Regarding option #1: It might be possible to advance this proposal as-is to Recommended Draft prior to the PPC in San Antonio, at the January AC meeting. However, in order to justify recommending this to the AC, I will need to see significantly more support for this policy on PPML prior to the next AC meeting in two weeks. Even then it is likely not possible to advance the proposal prior to the PPC in San Antonio at this point, its less than a month away.
>
> I will commit to making the motion to advance this if you do not. I don’t think the lack of support on the mailing list alone when compared to the past support expressed by the community in general is a good reason to hold this up. Further, since there has been literally no opposition, I would say this is a case where silence is consent and/or consensus really is an appropriate determination.
When there is some outspoken support and no opposition, it looks like consensus as well. For any proposal there will always be a number in the community that do not show either support or opposition. You can only count the votes made.
>
>> I will raise option #2 with the AC at our meeting in two weeks. However, for this options to even be considered, I'm quite sure that both the AC and the Board will want to see significant community support on PPML before they would moving forward with such an option.
>
> Yes, I think this is a contingency if we fail to do the job per option 1.
Still really wonder why #1 is so hard.
>
>> I am interested to hear the community's opinions on the issue of this policy and the timing of ARIN Free Pool run out. Do you support any of the above options? Some other option?
>
> See above.
Support as written.
>
>> So, if you support this policy, and particularly if you think this policy should go to the PPC at NANOG in San Antonio in February as Recommended Draft policy please speak up ASAP.
>
> Yes, please!
+1
>
>> Do you have comments on or support the alternate text proposed in the email at this link?
>> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2014-December/029565.html <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2014-December/029565.html>
>
> I don’t care whether we advance the current text or Andrew’s proposal. I think Andrew’s proposal is a cosmetic improvement, but as Andrew states in his mail, operationally, it’s a no-op compared to the current proposal, so either one is fine with me.
I would rather just see the current text advance. I just don’t see the need for more changes.
>
>> Finally, if anyone opposes this policy it is important to speak up, as at this point no one has expressed any opposition to the policy at all.
>
> Indeed, since consensus can be defined as “The absence of a sustained opposition”…
+1 again
…karl
>
> Owen
>
>>
>> Thanks and I look forward to your comments.
>>
>> On 11/25/14 14:35 , ARIN wrote:
>>> On 20 November 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
>>> "ARIN-prop-213 Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4" as a Draft
>>> Policy.
>>>
>>> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21 is below and can be found at:
>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_21.html <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_21.html>
>>>
>>> You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft
>>> Policy 2014-21 on the Public Policy Mailing List.
>>>
>>> The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance
>>> of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource
>>> Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are:
>>>
>>> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
>>> * Technically Sound
>>> * Supported by the Community
>>>
>>> The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at:
>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>>>
>>> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Communications and Member Services
>>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>>>
>>>
>>> ## * ##
>>>
>>>
>>> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21
>>> Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4
>>>
>>> Date: 25 November 2014
>>>
>>> Problem Statement:
>>>
>>> At the time that this section of policy was written, IXP growth in North
>>> America was stagnant. Efforts of late have increased significantly
>>> within the IXP standards and other communities to improve critical
>>> infrastructure in North America. This effort is paying dividends and we
>>> project that a /16 will not be enough to continue to improve global
>>> interconnect conditions and support needed IXP CI infrastructure.
>>>
>>> Policy statement:
>>>
>>> Change to text in section 4.4 Micro Allocations:
>>>
>>> Current text:
>>>
>>> ARIN will place an equivalent of a /16 of IPv4 address space in a
>>> reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. If at
>>> the end of the policy term there is unused address space remaining in
>>> this pool, ARIN staff is authorized to utilize this space in a manner
>>> consistent with community expectations.
>>>
>>> Proposed text to replace current text entirely:
>>>
>>> ARIN will place an equivalent of a /15 of IPv4 address space in a
>>> reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4.
>>>
>>> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
>>
>>
>> --
>> ================================================
>> David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu <mailto:farmer at umn.edu>
>> Office of Information Technology
>> University of Minnesota
>> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
>> ================================================
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
>> Please contact info at arin.net <mailto: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 <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml <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/20150109/90c8d4c5/attachment.htm>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list