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

Fri Jan 29 11:00:27 EST 2016

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> wrote:

>
>
> 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
>

-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20160129/d82f4375/attachment.htm>