[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks

Tue Oct 6 21:45:55 EDT 2015

Before we started mucking around with lowering the minimum size block, it
was a /20 for ISPs (/22 for multi-homed ISPs). /20 became the defacto ISP
slow start.  Post 2014-13, it was reduced for to a /24 as the minimum for
ISPs, but the slow start initial block was between a /24 and a /20 at the
ISP's request.

For end users it was /20 or /24 for multi-homed.

https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_13.html

Slow start of between /24 and /20 is consistent with automatic transfer
pre-approval for ISPs holding no IPv4 addresses, or for ISPs whose IPv4
holding are at or above 80% used, and have no previous history in the past
year to support a larger transfer.

We have never had a slow start for end-users, but could imagine a block
between /24 and /22 as the right size based on the fact that most
assignments are within that size, and it lines up with other region's soft
landing.

Anti 2 year flip / revert to ARIN free pool is a good provision.

I have a few more thoughts for this policy.

1. At any time, an org can opt to revert back to justified need based on
their past 3-12 months (the org chooses the window size) run rate they can
get a two year supply.

[this is useful for orgs growing at faster than the slow start size]

2. Orgs disolved due to corporate restructuring less than 24 months after
creation can keep their IP space if they meet traditional needs
justification.

___Jason

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> Dani,
>
> In fairness to Bill, I think he may also have chosen them because I
> suggested that those would be boundaries I would consider livable.
>
> I believe they represent a good size to guarantee that small organizations
> are not shut out of the transfer market based on size, but still ensure
> that need assessment is preserved in order to prevent acquisition of
> addresses without intended use thereof.
>
> While a /20 is a fair quantity of addresses (4096), it’s a pretty small
> number of customers for an ISP in most cases and I think anything smaller
> would be somewhat punitive.
>
> It does also line up well with transfer history and other ARIN data about
> small-ish organizations and address issuance over the last several years.
>
> Owen
>
> On Sep 30, 2015, at 03:52 , Dani Roisman <droisman at softlayer.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> I’m interested to learn how you came up with the below proposed netblock
> sizes “/20 if a ISP or /22 for an end user” ?  Is there data behind that?
> If not, does it make sense to ask ARIN to supply data regarding sizes of
> transfers which have occurred in the past 12 - 18 months?
>
> --
> Dani Roisman
>
> ________________________________
> From: "Bill Buhler" <bill at tknow.com<mailto:bill at tknow.com>>
> To: "owen" <owen at delong.com<mailto:owen at delong.com>>
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 12:59:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based
> evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks
>
> OK, how about this:
>
> Small end users and ISPs are allowed to obtain IPv4 address blocks without
> a needs test as long as the following criteria are met:
>
>
> a.       The total size of their ARIN allocations at any time of the
> process does not exceed a /20 if a ISP or /22 for an end user.
>
> b.      They cannot purchase IP address from the transfer market more than
> three total times to reach this size, including the initial operation.
>
> c.       None of the addresses purchased can be transferred to any other
> entity for twenty-four months following the date of the last transfer.
>
> d.      If the company ceases operations within the twenty-four month
> window the addresses are automatically transferred to the ARIN free pool.
> After that period of time regular transfer rights exist.
>
> e.      All subsequent allocations / transfers require regular needs
> testing after the initial twenty-four month allocation window.
>
> f.        Eligible entities for this policy consist of ISPs and End users
> who have a unique physical address in the ARIN region at the suite level.
> Meaning if two companies share the same suite they are not eligible to both
> have ARIN allocations.
>
> -------------------
>
> I believe that meets all of your concerns. I would prefer companies get
> everything they think they will need in one operation, but I don?t want to
> have fear drive them into buying the max amount just in case.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bill Buhler
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>

-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20151006/4ff36bd4/attachment.htm>