[arin-ppml] ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-Day Utilization Requirement in End-User IPv4 Policy
Richard J. Letts
rjletts at uw.edu
Tue Feb 16 15:51:22 EST 2016
My preference is to apply the policy change as written (with the minor editorial change substituting "criterion" for "criteria".)
Thank you
Richard Letts
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of David Farmer
> Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 9:23 PM
> To: ARIN PPML <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-Day Utilization
> Requirement in End-User IPv4 Policy
>
> 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
> ================================================
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list