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

McTim dogwallah at gmail.com
Fri Jan 29 08:27:59 EST 2016


On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Jason Schiller <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> 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> 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
>>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> _______________________________________________________
> Jason Schiller|NetOps|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.
>



-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20160129/d3888bbc/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list