[arin-ppml] ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-Day Utilization Requirement in End-User IPv4 Policy

Brian Jones bjones at vt.edu
Tue Feb 16 16:52:25 EST 2016


On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Richard J. Letts <rjletts at uw.edu> wrote:

> My preference is to apply the policy change as written (with the minor
> editorial change substituting "criterion" for "criteria".)
>

​+1​
--
Brian


>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160216/a6b90820/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list