[arin-ppml] ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-Day Utilization Requirement in End-User IPv4 Policy
David Farmer
farmer at umn.edu
Tue Feb 16 00:23:18 EST 2016
As shepherd, I need additional feedback on this, I need a better sense
of what the community wants here.
Should we move forward more or less as-is, with a minor editorial
change, substituting "criterion" for "criteria"?
Or, does the community want to work on a way to address the concerns
raised but Jason?
Your input please.
Thanks
On 1/29/16 10:00 , Jason Schiller wrote:
> McTim,
>
> WRT some other tangible and verifiable claim to show there was a real
> commitment to use half the address space within one year...
>
> I think there are 3 choices:
>
> 1. Very vague
>
> Something like "there must be some tangible and verifiable claim to
> show there was a real commitment to use half the address space within
> one year and not just a future projection or business case"
>
>
> 2. Open ended with some guidance for ARIN staff:
>
> Something like "there must be some tangible and verifiable claim to
> show there was a real commitment to use half the address space within
> one year and not just a future projection or business case. Some
> examples include:
> - list of equipment in hand to be numbered counting at least 25% of
> requested IP size
> - invoices showing equipment purchases demonstrating a commitment to buy
> equipment to be numbered counting at least 25% of requested IP size
> - invoices showing equipment purchases demonstrating a commitment to buy
> equipment to be numbered counting at least 50% of requested IP size
> within one year
> - lease agreements for real estate supporting equipment that is
> appropratly sized to support equipment to be numbered counting at least
> 50% of requested IP size
>
> 3. specific criterion
>
> ----
>
> I don't know what it the right answer here, and suspect it has more to
> do with what the community is comfortable with.
>
> On one end of the spectrum is choice 1. This allows ARIN to do the
> right thing. But this also is not clear about what the community
> expects, and ARIN may act in a way that is counter to what is
> anticipated, and may seem like ARIN is being arbitrary or has too much
> leeway to screw with requestors.
>
> The opposite end of the spectrum is choice 3. This sets a very clear
> list of what qualifies. Hammering out that list may be very difficult,
> and it is unlikely to be complete. This will leave little or no room
> for ARIN to do the right thing and approve a request that is justified,
> but not one of the criterion listed.
>
> Choice 2 is the middle ground. Where we have a not necessarily complete
> list of criterion (so somewhat less difficulty in drawing up the list)
> that creates a very clear expectation of what ARIN should accept (and
> reduces the possibility that ARIN may act in a way that is counter to
> what is anticipated, and may seem like ARIN is being arbitrary or has
> too much leeway to screw with requestors) with respect to criterion
> clearly defined, while also allowing ARIN to do the right thing with
> similar types of proof that are not explicitly listed as criterion (this
> has somewhat higher risk that ARIN may act in a way that is counter to
> what is anticipated, and may seem like ARIN is being arbitrary or has
> too much leeway to screw with requestors, but less risk than option 1 as
> the criterion should serve as good guidance)
>
>
> So two open questions to the community?
>
> 1. Is the community most comfortable with:
> A. totally vague and open-ended such as "there must be some
> tangible and verifiable claim to show there was a real commitment to
> use half the address space within one year and not just a future
> projection or business case"
>
> B. A vague statement with some guidance as to some acceptable forms
> of tangible verifiable proof of a real commitment to use half the IP
> address within one year.
>
> C. A very clear list of what proof is considered acceptable
>
>
> 2. If the community prefers B. guidance or C. a very clear list then
> what sort of things would the community like to see on that list?
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 8:27 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com
> <mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Jason Schiller
> <jschiller at google.com <mailto:jschiller at google.com>> wrote:
>
> I support the removal of the 30 day utilization as it is
> unreasonable for any larger end-site, who may have a real need
> for say a /16, with 65,000 desktops arriving on a loading doc
> next week, but an inability to unbox, configure and deploy
> 16,384 to the various office locations in 30 days.
>
>
> agreed.
>
> However, this is the only provision that has a real, tangible,
> and verifiable claim. Without this check justified need for end
> users simply becomes a 1 year future looking projection, and
> with sufficient arm waving an easy end run around justified need
> for any end user with no IP space or if they are efficiently
> using what they currently hold.
>
>
> good point!
>
> I could get on board if the maximum sized block permitted on a
> purely future looking projection was a /24 and you had to use it
> prior to getting more.
>
>
> +1
>
> I could certainly get on board if there were some other tangible
> and verifiable claim to show there was a real commitment to use
> half the address space within one year.
>
>
> Would this language suffice, or would we need a metric of some sort?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> McTim
>
> __Jason
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Brian Jones <bjones at vt.edu
> <mailto:bjones at vt.edu>> wrote:
>
> Looks good to me Dave. I am okay with using criteria or
> criterion, however using the strict definition it looks as
> though criterion is the proper singular form.
>
> --
> Brian
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 5:54 PM, David Farmer
> <farmer at umn.edu <mailto:farmer at umn.edu>> wrote:
>
> The following is the proposed update for ARIN-2015-3:
> Remove 30-Day Utilization Requirement in End-User IPv4
> Policy based on strong support in Montreal.
>
> Beyond deleting the 25% bullet as the policy says, their
> are editorial changes as follows to the remaining text;
>
> - It looks weird to have single item bullet list, so
> merge the two remaining sentence fragments into a single
> sentence.
> - Change "are" to "is", since there is only one
> remaining criteria
> - Use of "criteria" as a singular is common usage, even
> though technically it's plural.
> - Resulting in "The basic criteria that must be met is a
> 50% utilization rate within one year."
>
> The remaining and resulting text for 4.3.3 is now
> included in the policy text, for editorial clarity. The
> original staff and legal suggested removing the RFC2050
> reference and also pointed out that
> 4.2.3.6 also has a 25% immediate use clause and a
> RFC2050 reference.
>
> Feedback in Montreal was that deleting the 25% immediate
> use was a nice bite-sized change, and we shouldn't try
> to do more than that with this change, so those changes
> are not included at this time.
>
> Any additional feedback or comments are appreciated.
>
> Thanks
>
> ---------
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization
> requirement in end-user IPv4 policy
>
> Date: 27 January 2015
>
> Problem Statement:
>
> End-user policy is intended to provide end-users with a
> one year supply of IP addresses. Qualification for a
> one-year supply requires the network operator to utilize
> at least 25% of the requested addresses within 30 days.
> This text is unrealistic and should be removed.
>
> First, it often takes longer than 30 days to stage
> equipment and start actually using the addresses.
>
> Second, growth is often not that regimented; the
> forecast is to use X addresses over the course of a
> year, not to use 25% of X within 30 days.
>
> Third, this policy text applies to additional address
> space requests. It is incompatible with the requirements
> of other additional address space request justification
> which indicates that 80% utilization of existing space
> is sufficient to justify new space. If a block is at
> 80%, then often (almost always?) the remaining 80% will
> be used over the next 30 days and longer. Therefore the
> operator cannot honestly state they will use 25% of the
> ADDITIONAL space within 30 days of receiving it; they're
> still trying to use their older block efficiently.
>
> Fourth, in the face of ARIN exhaustion, some ISPs are
> starting to not give out /24 (or larger) blocks. So the
> justification for the 25% rule that previously existed
> (and in fact, applied for many years) is no longer germane.
>
> Policy statement:
>
> Remove the 25% utilization criteria bullet point from
> NRPM 4.3.3.
>
> Resulting text:
>
> 4.3.3. Utilization rate
>
> Utilization rate of address space is a key factor in
> justifying a new
> assignment of IP address space. Requesters must show
> exactly how
> previous address assignments have been utilized and must
> provide
> appropriate details to verify their one-year growth
> projection.
>
> The basic criteria that must be met is a 50% utilization
> rate within one year.
>
> A greater utilization rate may be required based on
> individual network
> requirements. Please refer to RFC 2050 for more
> information on
> utilization guidelines.
>
> Comments:
> a.Timetable for implementation: Immediate
> b.Anything else
>
> --
> ================================================
> 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
> <tel:1-612-626-0815>
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
> <tel: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
> 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
> Please contact info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you
> experience any issues.
>
>
>
>
> --
> _______________________________________________________
> Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com
> <mailto:jschiller at google.com>|571-266-0006 <tel:571-266-0006>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> Please contact info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you
> experience any issues.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
>
>
>
>
> --
> _______________________________________________________
> Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com
> <mailto:jschiller at google.com>|571-266-0006
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
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
================================================
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list