[arin-ppml] Community Networks (Was Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM)

Brian Jones bjones at vt.edu
Wed Aug 10 10:09:58 EDT 2016


--
Brian

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Keith W. Hare <Keith at jcc.com> wrote:

> David,
>
>
>
> 6.5.2.2 item C requests a plan “with a minimum of 50 assignments within 5
> years”
>
>
>
> 6.5.9.1 says “a community network must demonstrate it will immediately
> provide sustained service to at least 100 simultaneous users and must
> demonstrate a plan to provide sustained service to at least 200
> simultaneous users within one year.”
>
>
>
> Seems to me that it would be easier to create a plan for 50 assignments
> within 5 years than demonstrate providing service to at least 100
> simultaneous users immediately.
>
>
>
> I suppose the reason no one has requested IP space under the community
> networks proposal could be that it seems to only apply to IPv6, and there
> does not yet seem to be a large end-user demand for IPv6 connectivity. Or
> perhaps removing the HD-ratio will simplify the community network section
> enough that it will get used.
>
>
>

​+1​

​I am thinking the same thing, that if the HD-ratio is relaxed or removed
that the community section will start to be used. ​




> Keith
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* David Huberman [mailto:daveid at panix.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 9, 2016 6:09 PM
> *To:* Keith W. Hare <Keith at jcc.com>
> *Cc:* David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu>; arin-ppml at arin.net
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio
> from NRPM
>
>
>
>  Keith,
>
>
>
>
>
> Which criterion in 6.5.2.2 (ISP initial) would a small community network
> qualify under? Or 6.5.8.1 (end user initial)?
>
>
>
> Answer: it's been proven by the community networks folks that in many
> cases a requisite couldn't meet any of those criteria. They need special
> language, and got it. :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 9, 2016, at 2:59 PM, Keith W. Hare <Keith at jcc.com> wrote:
>
> From a quick read of the Community Networks section, I don’t see where
> someone saves anything by qualifying as a Community Network.
>
>
>
> So, I support draft policy 2016-6 as written, but would also support a
> proposal that completely eliminates the Community Networks sections.
>
>
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>
>
> Keith W. Hare
>
> keith at jcc.com
>
> JCC Consulting, Inc.
>
> 600 Newark Granville Road
>
> P.O. Box 381
>
> Granville, Ohio 43023 USA
>
> Phone: +1 740-587-0157
>
> http://www.jcc.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>] *On Behalf Of *David Farmer
> *Sent:* Monday, August 8, 2016 11:14 PM
> *To:* arin-ppml at arin.net
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio
> from NRPM
>
>
>
> As AC Shepherd, I haven't seen much discussions of this one;  I think the
> Elimination of HD-Ratio is probably fairly non-controversial itself.
>
>
>
> However, in regards to the Community Networks section, I see three
> high-level alternatives for the community to consider;
>
>    1. Rewrite the Community Networks section to not reference HD-Ratio, as
> the Draft Policy suggests;
>
>    2. Replace the Community Networks section with a generic small ISP
> policy allowing allocations of /40 (qualifying for xxx-small IPv6
> fee category);
>
>    3. Remove the Community Networks section all together; It doesn't seem
> to have been used since it was adopted, see Dan Alexander's Policy
> Simplification presentation, slide #4. If we go this way, 2.11 should be
> deleted also;
>
>
>
> https://www.arin.net/vault/participate/meetings/reports/
> ARIN_37/PDF/tuesday/alexander_simplification.pdf#page=4
>
>
>
> I think a rewrite in line with the original intent for the Community
> Networks section is the proper place to start the conversation, and I think
> this Draft Policy does a good job doing that.  However since we need to
> touch the Community Networks section to accomplish the Elimination of
> HD-Ratio, I'd like to hear from some Community Networks to better
> understand why the current policy is not being used.  Is there some problem
> with it? Is it just not necessary? Was it too early? Are Community
> Networks just being requested and recorded as other end user requests?
>
>
>
> Personally, I like the idea of the Community Networks policy, but since no
> one seems to be using it, maybe we should look at why as part of any
> rewrite.
>
>
>
> Comments please, even if you simply support the policy as written.  Also,
> if you know someone involved in operating a Community Network please
> forward this to them, I'd really like to hear from them even if they don't
> want to post to PPML themselves.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 8:21 AM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
>
> On 21 July 2016, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following
> Proposal to Draft Policy status:
>
> ARIN-prop-231: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM
>
> This Draft Policy has been numbered and titled:
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6 is below and can be found at:
>
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_6.html
>
> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. 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 Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are:
>
>     > Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
>     > Technically Sound
>     > Supported by the Community
>
> The 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-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM
>
> Date: 26 July 2016
>
> Problem Statement:
>
> The HD-Ratio has become an anachronism in the NRPM and some of the
> vestigial references to it create confusion about recommended prefix sizes
> for IPv6 resulting in a belief in the community that ARIN endorses the idea
> of /56s as a unit of measure in IPv6 assignments. While there are members
> of the community that believe a /56 is a reasonable choice, ARIN policy has
> always allowed and still supports /48 prefixes for any and all end-sites
> without need for further justification. More restrictive choices are still
> permitted under policy as well. This proposal does not change that, but it
> attempts to eliminate some possible confusion.
>
> The last remaining vestigial references to HD-Ratio are contained in the
> community networks policy (Section 6.5.9). This policy seeks to replace
> 6.5.9 with new text incorporating end user policy by reference (roughly
> equivalent to the original intent of 6.5.9 prior to the more recent changes
> to end-user policy). While this contains a substantial rewrite to the
> Community Networks policy, it will not have any negative impact on
> community networks. It may increase the amount of IPv6 space a community
> network could receive due to the change from HD-Ratio, but not more than
> any other similar sized end-user would receive under existing policy.
>
> Policy statement:
>
> Replace section 6.5.9 in its entirety as follows:
>
> 6.5.9 Community Network Assignments
>
> While community networks would normally be considered to be ISP type
> organizations under existing ARIN criteria, they tend to operate on much
> tighter budgets and often depend on volunteer labor. As a result, they tend
> to be much smaller and more communal in their organization rather than
> provider/customer relationships of commercial ISPs. This section seeks to
> provide policy that is more friendly to those environments by allowing them
> to use end-user criteria. 6.5.9.1 Qualification Criteria
>
> To qualify under this section, a community network must demonstrate to
> ARIN’s satisfaction that it meets the definition of a community network
> under section 2.11 of the NRPM. 6.5.9.2 Receiving Resources
>
> Once qualified under this section, a community network shall be treated as
> an end-user assignment for all ARIN purposes (both policy and fee
> structure) unless or until the board adopts a specific more favorable fee
> structure for community networks.
>
> Community networks shall be eligible under this section only for IPv6
> resources and the application process and use of those resources shall be
> governed by the existing end-user policy contained in section 6.5.8 et. seq.
>
> Community networks seeking other resources shall remain subject to the
> policies governing those resources independent of their election to use
> this policy for IPv6 resources.
>
> Delete section 2.8 — This section is non-operative and conflicts with the
> definitions of utilization contained in current policies.
>
> Delete section 2.9 — This section is no longer operative.
>
> Delete section 6.7 — This section is no longer applicable.
>
> Comments:
>
> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
>
> Anything else
>
> Originally, I thought this would be an editorial change as the HD-Ratio
> has been unused for several years.
>
> However, further research revealed that it is still referenced in the
> Community Networks policy which has also gone unused since its inception.
> As a result, I am going to attempt to simultaneously simplify the Community
> Networks policy while preserving its intent and eliminate the HD-Ratio from
> the NRPM.
>
> I realize that fees are out of scope for policy, however, in this case, we
> are not setting fees. We are addressing in policy which fee structure the
> given policy should operate under in a manner which does not constrain
> board action on actual fees.
>
> This is an attempt to preserve the original intent of the Community
> networks policy in a way that may make it less vestigial.
>
> Alternatively, we could simply delete Section 6.5.9 if that is preferred.
> The primary goal here is to get rid of vestigial reference to HD-Ratio
> rather than to get wrapped around the axle on community networks.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 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).
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20160810/3c7c60b0/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list